Manuscript submission and the first evaluation
Manuscripts must be submitted through the Online Manuscript Submission and Tracking System (OMSTS). The editorial office evaluates the manuscript against the aims and scope of the journal. It will then be forwarded to at least 3 peer reviewers.
Peer reviewer and peer review process
The objective of the journal is to speed up the decision process without compromising on quality. To achieve this objective the peer reviewers may be members of the editorial board or external reviewers. The selection of peer reviewers depends on their availability and the subject of the manuscript. The manuscript will be accepted, if all peer reviewers recommend the manuscript be accepted. The manuscript will be rejected, if more than half of peer reviewers recommend the manuscript be rejected. In all other cases the reviewers’ comments will be sent back to the submitting author to revise the manuscript. Journal of Smart Electrical Engineering (IJSEE) is not a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at present. However, the journal is committed to follow the standards and guidelines set out by COPE and complies with IJSEE’s code of conduct regulated by the executive and editorial board. Also, IJSEE has applied for COPE membership. IJSEE follows the Code of Conduct (http://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct) of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (http://publicationethics.org/), and follows the COPE Flowcharts (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts) for Resolving Cases of Suspected Misconduct. IJSEE is committed to maintaining high standards through a rigorous peer-review together with strict ethical policies. The editors should take any infringements of professional ethical codes, such as plagiarism, fraudulent use of data, bogus claims of authorship, very seriously. The following text is extracted from http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines. The text is not exactly as Guidelines for Editor-in-Chief, Editors, Referee, Author, Reader and Publisher, but it is adapted according to the aims and scope and the editorial policies of IJSEE’s Journal.
General responsibilities of the publisher, editors and editorial policies
- Fair play
Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Publication decisions
- The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
- Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the merit of the journal. Editors should not reverse decisions to accept submissions unless serious problems are identified with the submission. New editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous editor unless serious problems are identified.
- Editors should strive to ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased and timely. Editors should have systems to ensure that material submitted to the Journal remains confidential while under review. Editors should not reveal the identity of reviewers to authors and vice versa. Identifying information should be stripped from submitted manuscripts so that reviewers and authors cannot access any information about each other.
- Citation of published works with the primary purpose of increasing the number of citations to the cited author or to articles published in a particular journal is considered manipulation of citations and constitutes unethical behavior.
The editor-in-chief of IJSEE is responsible for editorial content and managing content- related processes. It is the publisher’s responsibility to promptly release corrections or retractions after the discovery of a significant error or scientific inaccuracy in a published work. It is the publisher’s responsibility to handle the cases of misconduct and ensure that publication ethics of the journal are obeyed.
Duties of peer reviewers and review policies
- Contribution to editorial decisions.
- Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
The reviewer not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person’s or organization’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.
- Fair play.
- The reviewer only agree to review manuscripts for which they have the subject expertise required to carry out a proper assessment and which they can assess in a timely manner.
- The reviewer not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
- The reviewer recognize that impersonation of another individual during the review process is considered serious misconduct
- The reviewer provide journals with personal and professional information that is accurate and a true representation of their expertise.
- Standards of objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
- The reviewer follow the journal’ policies on situations they consider to represent a conflict to reviewing. If no guidance is provided, they should inform the journal if: they work at the same institution as any of the authors (or will be joining that institution or are applying for a job there); they are or have been recent (e.g. within the past 3 years) mentors, mentees, close collaborators or joint grant holders; they have a close personal relationship with any of the authors.
- The reviewer respond in a reasonable time-frame, especially if they cannot do the review, and without intentional delay.
- The reviewer only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension.
Duties of authors and authorship policies
- Reporting standards
- Data Access and Retention
- Originality and Plagiarism
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
- Acknowledgement of Sources
- Authorship of the Paper
- Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Fundamental errors in published works
Authors of contributions and studies research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
The AMS asserts that the Society’s journal editorial boards and the publisher have a responsibility to be vigilant regarding plagiarism in the material that they publish. Once notified of possible plagiarism in their publication, the journal editorial board and the publisher have a responsibility to investigate carefully such an allegation at any stage of the publication process. In the pre-publication stage, a determination of plagiarism should result in rejection of the article. In the post-publication stage, a retraction or correction should be published in a subsequent issue of the journal.