PUBLICATION ETHICS

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

JASEE Journal of Application and Science on Electrical Engineering follows the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers.  Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behavior (based on Elsevier policies).   

Duties of Editors  

  • Fair play and editorial independence.  Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study's validity, clarity) and their relevance to the journal's scope, without regard to the authors' race, gender, religious belief,  or institutional affiliation. The editor in chief has full authority over the editorial content of the journal and the timing of publication of that content.
  • Confidentiality.  Editors will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest.  Editors will not use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research purposes without the authors' explicit written consent.  
  • Publication decisions.  The editor-in-chief is responsible for deciding which manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published. The editor in chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
  • Involvement and cooperation in investigations.  Editors (in conjunction with the publisher and society) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised about a submitted manuscript or published paper. If the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note that may be relevant will be published in the journal.

Duties of Reviewers  

  • Contribution to editorial decisions.  Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. 
  • Promptness.  Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation to review so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
  • Confidentiality.  Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such; they must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor in chief.
  • Standards of objectivity.  Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments so that authors can use them for improving the manuscript.  
  • Acknowledgment of sources.  Reviewers should identify relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any statement that is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation.  
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest.  Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest.  Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's research without the express written consent of the authors. 

Duties of Authors  

  • Reporting standards.  Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work.  Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  • Data access and retention.  Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the manuscript for editorial review. They should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable.  
  • Originality and plagiarism.  Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only entirely original works, and if they have used the work and words of others, this has been appropriately cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from "passing off" another's paper as the author's own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), and claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Multiple, duplicate, redundant, or concurrent submission/publication.  Authors should not submit a manuscript that has already been published in another journal for consideration. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal is unethical publishing behavior and unacceptable.   
  • Authorship of the manuscript.  Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.  
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest.  Authors should—at the earliest stage possible, disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants, other funding, etc. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed.
  • Acknowledgment of sources.  Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from the conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source.  
  • Peer review.  Authors are obliged to participate in the peer-review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications, proof of ethics approval, and copyright permissions. In the case of the first decision of "revisions necessary," authors should respond to the reviewers' comments systematically, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given.
  • Fundamental errors in published works.  When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal's editors and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or retract the paper. For guidelines on retracting or correcting articles, please click here: https://www.elsevier.com/about/company-information/policies/article-withdrawal.
    • Article withdrawal.  Only used for Articles in Press which represent early versions of articles and sometimes contain errors.  Occasionally, but less frequently, the articles may represent infringements of professional, ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, or the like. In these cases, the full-text manuscript in pdf format will be withdrawn, but the title still appears on the journal issue page as [WITHDRAWN] Article title
    • Article retraction. The article was published and later found conclusively that there were infringements of professional, ethical codes, such as multiple submissions, bogus claims of authorship, plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, and the like.  In these cases, a full-text article in pdf format will appear on the journal issue page, and the title will be displayed as [RETRACTION] Article title.  The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the .pdf indicating on each page that it is "retracted".
    • Article removal: Legal limitation.  The article is defamatory or infringes others' legal rights, or where the article is, it will be the subject of a court order.  In these cases, while the metadata (Title and Authors) will be retained, the text page will be replaced with a screen indicating the article has been removed for legal reasons
    • Article replacement.  In which the article, if acted upon, might pose a serious health risk or might infringe others' legal rights.  It may wish to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. In these cases, the procedures for retraction will be followed with the database retraction notice and publish a link to the corrected re-published article and state a history of the document

Duties of the Publisher  

  • Handling of unethical publishing behavior.  In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication, or plagiarism, the publisher, in close collaboration with the editors, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification, or the retraction of the affected workers in the most severe case.  The publisher, together with the editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place
  • Access to journal content.  The publisher is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures accessibility by partnering with organizations and maintaining our digital archive.