China Journal of Econmetrics (CJoE) is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on econometrics.
Sponsored by: Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences & Science Press
Edited by: Editorial Office of CJOE & Science Press
Print ISSN: 2096-9732
CN: 10-1738/F
Aim and Scope: China Journal of Econometrics aims at promoting the international dissemination of Chinese economics, contributing Chinese wisdom to the development of modern economics, and enhancing the international academic influence of Chinese economics. The content of the journal are academic papers in econometrics with originality in theory and methodology and scientific-technical reports creatively solving practical problems. The acceptable paper types include theory and methods, applications, reviews, etc. The journal values the paper that guided by major national needs and could extract important economic thoughts and scientific issues from China’s actual economic problems, innovate research methods, promote a scientific research paradigm that combines qualitative and quantitative research, reveal the operating laws of the Chinese economy and the world economy in the world which is undergoing changes unseen in a century, provide theoretical guidance and methodological support for solving important real economic problems in China and the world.
Publication model: Subscription
Fees: The journal does not charge any fee for manuscript processing. The expenses associated with the overall journal operations, publishing and printing, mailing and shipping, website maintenance, etc. are supported by: Academy of Mathematics and Systems Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Systems Engineering Society of China, and subscription revenue.
Peer Review Process
The scientific editors of CJoE evaluate each submission and those manuscripts that warrant further consideration for publication are sent out for in-depth peer review by external reviewers.
Peer review
CJoE operates under a single-blind peer review process. This means that editors and reviewers know the identity of the authors, however, the authors do not know the identity of the editors or reviewers. The reviewers’ identifies are also kept anonymous from each other.
When a manuscript is submitted to CJoE, it first goes through a technical check by the editorial office. This ensures all necessary items are included in the submission prior to sending to a scientific editor for evaluation. If the scientific editor deems the manuscript worthy of full peer review, the scientific editor will then send the manuscript out for in-depth peer review by external reviewers.
A decision can be made at any point in the evaluation process to reject the manuscript, whether this be without review, or with one review. The final decision on every manuscript is made by a scientific editor.
Confidentiality
The submitted manuscript is a privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers should destroy all copies of the manuscript after review and not share the manuscript with any colleagues without the explicit permission of the editor. Reviewers should not make personal or professional use of the data or interpretations before publication without the authors’ specific permission (unless they are invited to write an editorial or commentary to accompany the article).
Conflicts of interest
If a reviewer cannot judge a paper impartially, they should not accept the invitation to review it. If a reviewer has any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that are or even may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, they should not accept the invitation for review, or, if this conflict of interest is uncovered after seeing the full manuscript materials, they should recuse themselves immediately and fully inform the journal editors. If there is an aspect of a manuscript that a reviewer does not feel they are qualified to evaluate, they should inform the editor.
If the manuscript’s author is an editor, it will be assigned to another, independent editor for evaluation. It must also meet the same criteria for evaluation as all other manuscripts.
Special Issue Process
Manuscripts submitted as part of a special issue may be assigned to a guest scientific editor instead of a member of the editorial board to manage the peer review process. A guest editor is an expert in a sub-topic who is invited by an Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with the editorial board, to provide specialized leadership for a particular special issue. Articles published in a special issue must adhere to the same evaluation criteria and publication ethics as a regular article published in the journal. The peer review process for a special issue manuscript also follows the same peer review process as a regular manuscript submitted to the journal. For example, when a special issue manuscript is submitted, it first goes through a technical check by the editorial office before it is assigned to an editor or guest editor to evaluate it and select external peer reviewers. If the manuscript’s author is an editor or guest editor, it will be assigned to another, independent editor or guest editor and it must meet the same criteria for evaluation as all other manuscripts.
In order to strengthen science and technology ethics, promote research integrity, maintain the seriousness and reputation of academic activities, China Journal of Econometrics is now making following statement on the subject of ethical behavior standards, which all editors, editorial staff, authors, reviewers and publishers who involved in publishing process must follow to.
Author Responsibility
1) The author's contributions must be original works. The contributions and their key contents have never been published before. Multiple contributions are prohibited. No plagiarism, reference information should be clearly indicated in the cited point of view; The data in this paper are authentic and reliable, without deception, during the review process by editors or reviewers, authors may be required to provide research data to support their papers. The author should be also prepared to provide such data to the public. Academic misconduct such as plagiarism, fabrication or falsification shall be strictly prohibited.
2) All signed authors must contribute to the research of the paper, and not omit qualified authors; Corresponding authors should ensure that the published papers are authorized and agreed by the co-authors, and there is no signature dispute; Change of authorship order before publication must obtain the consent of co-authors to ensure the accuracy of authorship rights.
3) The paper or research funding information should be indicated in the original manuscript and avoid false labeling; Other sources of support or assistance for the publication of the paper or persons who are not qualified to sign the paper should be clearly stated in the acknowledgements.
4) Modify or withdraw the manuscript: the author has the right to modify the content of the manuscript before acceptance; After the editor's approval, the manuscript that needs to be modified should be revised within the specified time and returned to the editor. If the revision time is overdue, the author can explain the details to the editor. Without reasonable explanation, manuscripts will be withdrawn. If the author withdraws by himself, he/she must submit a retraction application to the editor. Before the paper is published, the author should not make major changes to the conclusive research results and methods in the paper. Instead, the author can revise the statement, data and format in the paper. The author should inform the editor of any errors discovered at any time. Articles suspected of academic misconduct, such as those reported by others or rechecked by the software system of academic misconduct, are confirmed to have academic misconduct problems by experts and will be withdrawn by the Journal. As for the academic misconduct of published manuscripts, journal will retract the manuscripts, and put the author on the blacklist of authors of the journal, and no longer accept the author’s manuscripts within five years.
Reviewer Responsibility
1) Comments should be objective and fair, definitive opinions on the academic value and whether the paper can meet the publication standards should be given, avoiding ambiguous comments.
2) Respect for diverse academic views, do not make rude, aggressive comments; Serious scientific misconduct should be feedback to the editorial office faithfully.
3) If the work or method is not so familiar to make a peer review, please inform the editorial office to make adjustment; For paper with conflicts in interests or having shared benefits, avoidance of peer review is required.
4) When a peer review invitation is accepted, the review comments should be presented within the planning time; hinders or delays for completion of review should be notified to the editorial office in time.
5) Without authorization from the editor-in-chief, manuscript information shall not be disclosed or discussed with others to ensure the confidentiality of review result. Without the author’s written consent, the unpublished materials disclosed in the manuscript shall not be used for the reviewer’s own research
Editorial Responsibility
1) Be responsible to ensure the justice of review and reduce bias; Make efforts to ensure the timely process for contribution by arranging peer review and publication promptly, especially for papers with important findings.
2) Ensure the journal publication on time with schedule; Report novel and authentic researches, give priority to publication of frontier and hot issues; Academic misconducts are definitely rejected.
3) A suitable and competent reviewers’ database should be established and maintained; The editor should select experts with appropriate expertise in related fields to serve as reviewers Quality of reviewing tasks by reviews/editorial board members should be objectively recorded and evaluated.
4) Feedback the experts’ review comments to the author timely; Coordinate academic discussions and communications between the author and reviewer; Offensive or defamatory comments are rejected; The author’s appeal on the final decision is accepted.
5) According to the importance, originality, clarity and relevance of the manuscript, editors have the right to reject or accept the manuscript.
