¡¡¡¡To advance the construction of academic ethics norms in scientific journals, effectively ensure the proper functioning of the scientific research integrity mechanism, and fully safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of readers and authors as well as the academic credibility of the journal, the Editorial Office of Chinese Health Quality Management hereby provides detailed explanations on the identification of academic misconduct and announces the specific handling procedures as follows:

1. Definition of Academic Misconduct
1.1 Plagiarism
Stealing others£§ ideas, data, images, research methods, written expressions, etc., and publishing them under one£§s own name.

1.2 Fabrication
Making up or fabricating data and facts, such as fabricating experimental results and inventing research cases.

1.3 Falsification
Intentionally modifying data and facts to render them untrue, such as falsifying experimental data and altering chart data.

1.4 Inappropriate Authorship
Authorship or author ranking behaviors that do not match the actual contributions, such as listing individuals who have not participated in the research as authors or deliberately adjusting the author order for personal gain.

1.5 Multiple Submissions
Submitting the same paper or multiple papers with only minor differences to two or more journals.

1.6 Duplicate Publication
Republishing content from one£§s own previously published literature without proper acknowledgment.

1.7 Violation of Research Ethics
The research involved in the paper violates research ethics norms, such as disclosing privacy and failing to declare conflicts of interest.

1.8 Other Forms of Academic Misconduct
Including adding references that have not been actually consulted, marking indirect citations as direct citations, using copyrighted literature without permission, commissioning third parties to write, submit, or revise papers, and publishing papers in violation of confidentiality regulations.

2. Preventive Measures
2.1 Editors and Peer Reviewers
(1) Peer reviewers and editors should conduct strict plagiarism checks to avoid multiple submissions and duplicate publications.
(2) A "double-blind peer review" system should be implemented to ensure fairness in the review process.
(3) Peer reviewers and editors should maintain confidentiality regarding the review process and manuscript content and avoid conflicts of interest.

2.2 Authors
(1) Authors should ensure the originality of their manuscripts and refrain from plagiarism, piracy, fabrication, and other misconduct.
(2) Authors should clearly indicate authorship and conflicts of interest and obtain permission or provide proper citations when using content from other sources.
(3) Authors should commit to disclosing and providing detailed explanations in a timely manner if they use generative artificial intelligence.

3. Handling Procedures
3.1 Submission Stage
The editorial office conducts plagiarism checks. If academic misconduct is detected, the manuscript will be rejected.

3.2 Peer Review Stage
(1) If a peer reviewer discovers academic misconduct, they should inform the editorial office.
(2) After verification by the editorial office, the manuscript will be rejected or required to be revised according to the circumstances.

3.3 Post-Publication Stage
(1) If academic misconduct is discovered through reader complaints or the editorial office£§s self-inspection, a retraction notice will be issued after verification.
(2) The retraction notice will be published on the journal£§s website and database platforms, and relevant data will be deleted.
(3) The author£§s research institution will be notified, and a warning or public notification will be issued depending on the severity of the case.

Editorial Office of Chinese Health Quality Management