For all parties involved in publishing (authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and publishers), it is necessary to agree on expected standards of ethical behavior. The ethics statement of this journal is based on the best practice guidelines of the publication ethics committee.

1 Editor-in-chief duties

1.1 Fair treatment: Evaluate the academic content of submissions without considering the author＇s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, nationality, or political views.

1.2 Confidentiality: The editor-in-chief and any editors shall not disclose any information about the submitted manuscript to the relevant authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial consultants and publishers.

1.3 Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscripts may not be used in the editor＇s research without the author＇s express written consent.

1.4 Publication decision: The executive editor is responsible for deciding which submissions should be published. The editor-in-chief finalized the manuscript will be guided by the policy of the journal＇s editorial board and subject to legal requirements, such as defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor-in-chief may also make decisions on publication and publication together with other editors or reviewers.

2 Responsibilities of peer review reviewers

2.1 Contribute to publishing decisions: Peer review helps the editor-in-chief make editorial decisions. Through editorial communication with the author, it can also help the author improve the manuscript.

2.2 Fast: Any invited reviewer who believes that he is not competent for the review of the relevant research in the submission or knows that the review cannot be completed in time, should immediately notify the editor-in-chief so that he can contact and replace other reviewers.

2.3 Confidentiality: All reviewed manuscripts should be kept confidential. Unless authorized by the editor-in-chief, it may not be shown or discussed to others.

2.4 Objective standards: Manuscript evaluation should adhere to the principle of objectiveness and should not criticize the author. Reviewers should have appropriate arguments to support their views. 2.5 Confirming the source: Reviewers should identify relevant published works that the author has not cited. Any statements about observations, derivations, or arguments should be accompanied by relevant quotations. When a reviewer finds that there is a substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript considered by the editor and any other published data known to the reviewer, the editor should be reminded.

2.6 Conflict of interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal gain. Reviewers should avoid manuscripts that have a conflict of interest due to competition, collaboration, or other ties between themselves and the manuscript author, company or institution.

3 Author responsibilities

3.1 Reporting standards: The original research results reported by the author should accurately describe the work done and objectively discuss its importance. The submission should accurately indicate the basic data, and should include sufficient details and references to allow others to copy the research. Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate descriptions are unethical and unacceptable.

3.2 Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that their writing is completely original. If the author uses other people＇s works and/or texts, they should quote them reasonably and appropriately.

3.3 Multiple submissions or repeated publication of one manuscript: Authors should not submit essentially the same manuscript to more than one journal or original literature publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal in parallel is an unethical publishing behavior and is not acceptable.

3.4 Confirm the source: The work of others must be correctly acknowledged, and the author should cite relevant documents that can influence his own research.

3.5 Author＇s signature: Authors should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the concept, design, implementation or interpretation of the reported research. All people who have made significant contributions should be listed as authors. If there are other people involved in some substantive aspects of the research project, it should be clearly pointed out in the Zhi Xie section. Corresponding authors should ensure that none of the authors do not meet the conditions, and that all authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agreed to submit and publish.

3.6 Human and laboratory animal hazards: If there is any unusual hazard in the use of chemicals, research procedures or equipment involved in the research, the author must clearly point out in the manuscript.

3.7 Conflict of interest: All authors should declare any financial or other substantial conflicts of interest that may affect the research results or interpretation of the results. All sources of financial support for research should be clearly stated.

3.8 Basic errors of published works: When an author discovers that his published work has major errors or inaccuracies, the author is obliged to notify the editor-in-chief or publisher of the magazine in time, and cooperate with them to retract the paper or publish the corresponding errata.

4 Publisher＇s Statement In the case of suspected or proven academic misconduct, the publisher will work closely with the editor-in-chief and will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and revise the article, including immediately publishing the errata. In severe cases, the affected article can be withdrawn completely. Publishers and journals do not differentiate between age, color, religion, belief, disability, marital status, veteran status, nationality, race, gender, genetic susceptibility or carrying status, or sexual orientation in the publishing process, services and activities.