Ethics Statement

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

CPSS Transactions on Power Electronics and Applications  is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, and Reviewers.

Authorship and co-authorship should be based on a substantial intellectual contribution. It is assumed that all authors have had a significant role in the creation of an article that bears their names. Therefore, the list of authors on an article serves multiple purposes; it indicates who is responsible for the work and to whom questions regarding the work should be addressed.
1. The CPSS TPEA affirms that authorship credit must be reserved for individuals who have met each of the following conditions:
a. Made a significant intellectual contribution to the theoretical development, system or experimental design, prototype development, and/or the analysis and interpretation of data associated with the work contained in the article;
b. Contributed to drafting the article or reviewing and/or revising it for intellectual content; and c. Approved the final version of the article as accepted for publication, including references.
2. In articles with multiple authorship, the order of the authors shall be at the discretion of the authors.
3. Once the list and order of authors has been established, the list and order of authors should not be altered without permission of all living authors of that article. Change in the author list is considered rare and exceptional, and the decision to allow such changes rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
4. Any part of an article essential to its main conclusions must be the responsibility of at least one author.
5. In the case of articles with multiple authors, a “corresponding” author must be designated as having responsibility for overseeing the publication process and ensuring the integrity of the final document. The corresponding author accepts the responsibility for:
a. Including as co-authors all persons appropriate and none inappropriate;
b. Obtaining from all co-authors their assent to be designated as such, as well as their approval of the final version of the article as accepted for publication; and
c. Keeping all co-authors apprised of the current status of an article submitted for publication, including furnishing all co-authors with copies of the reviewers’ comments and a copy of the published version, as appropriate.
6. Co-authors have responsibility for work submitted under their names. They should remain knowledgeable in so far as possible regarding the contents and status of the article, including the nature of any revisions.
7. If an article is revised and resubmitted to the same journal, coauthors should be asked by the corresponding author to reaffirm their assent to be listed as co-authors and to approve the revised version.
8. Co-authors added at any time during the review process or when the final version of the article is submitted for publication shall satisfy the requirements of authorship outlined in Subsection 1, and the corresponding author shall notify the Editor-in-Chief regarding addition of co-authors.
9. A co-author has the right to withdraw that person’s name from an article at any time before acceptance of the article by an editor. The corresponding author shall notify the responsible editor regarding removal of co-authors.

1. Peer review is essential to discourse. Authors are encouraged to have the first formal publication of their results be a peer reviewed article.
2. Financial support of the work being reported and of the authors should be clearly acknowledged in the article, as well as any potential conflict of interest.
3. Methods and materials should be described in sufficient detail to permit evaluation and replication.
4. All data should be presented upon request by an editor, to facilitate the review process.
5. When submitting an article, authors shall disclose whether or not the article has been published previously or if it is still under active consideration by another publication.
6. Authors have an obligation to correct errors promptly.
7. CPSS TPEA defines plagiarism as the use of someone else’s prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source. Plagiarism in any form is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences.
8. Fabrication or falsification of any aspect of an article is unacceptable.
9. Authors should only submit original work that has neither appeared elsewhere for publication, nor which is under review for another publication. If authors have used their own previously published work(s) as a basis for a new submission, they are required to cite the previous work(s) and very briefly indicate how the new submission offers substantive novel contributions beyond those of the previously published work(s).
10. Authors should not discuss any aspect of an article under evaluation with reviewers of the submitted article.
11. Only those articles of a researcher’s publication record that are directly relevant to the subject matter of the article under consideration should be included in the bibliography. Furthermore, an article shall be appropriately labeled as “submitted” when still in the review process or “accepted” when it has been accepted for publication but has not yet been published.
12. CPSS TPEA assumes that the material submitted to its publications is properly available for general dissemination to the readership of those publications. It is the responsibility of the authors, not the CPSS TPEA, to determine whether disclosure of their material requires the prior consent of other parties and, if so, to obtain it. If authors make use of charts, photographs, or other graphical or textual material from previously published material, the authors are responsible for obtaining written permission to use the material in the article.
13. Once an article has gone through the review process and a decision for final acceptance has been rendered, the corresponding author provides the final version of the article and supporting materials for publication. Any substantial and unauthorized changes made to the accepted article during this final stage of the publication process must be communicated in writing to the Editor-in-Chief, who then will decide if a re-review is necessary. This includes addition or removal of any citations. Failure of such notification may be considered as author misconduct, and at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief may be reported as such to the Editorial Board of CPSS TPEA.

1. Reviewers should be chosen for their high qualifications and objectivity regarding a particular article.
2. Reviews should be prompt and thorough.
3. Anonymity of reviewers of a given article shall be preserved to the extent possible, unless the reviewer and editor agree to disclosure.
4. Information contained in an article under review is confidential and shall not be shared with others, nor shall reviewers use non-public information contained in an article to advance their own research or financial interests.
5. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper.
6. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
7. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts when they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

1. The Editor-in-Chief should provide to the authors a written rationale for editorial decisions regarding an article submitted for publication. This is especially important if the article is being rejected.
2. Unpublished articles must be treated as confidential documents by all individuals involved in the editorial process.
3. Articles submitted by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor of the publication shall be handled by another editor of the publication.
4. The Editor-in-Chief or another editor of the publication shall not perform or accept any action that has the sole purpose of increasing the number of citations to influence the bibliometric independent measures of quality or impact of a periodical.
5. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.

Plagiarism is a threat to scholarly publishing in general. Originality of the submitted work can be maximized through screening to prevent publication of plagiarized content. For maximum effectiveness in CPSS TPEA, all CPSS TPEA articles shall be submitted to a plagiarism detection process prior to being reviewed. Editorial Office staffs utilize a plagiarism detection process to prescreen all articles upon submission. Any article found to have plagiarized content at Level 1, 2 or 3, as defined in IEEE PSPB Operations Manual Subsection 8.2.4.D, shall have its review suspended. Editorial Office staffs shall inform each author that review of their article has been suspended due to its similarity to previously published work, and provide the author with an opportunity to explain the similarity. If the investigating staff finds that no plagiarism has occurred, the article should be released for the normal review process.