Editorial Policies

Peer Review Process

This journal uses an external, double-blind peer review. This means that the reviewers won’t get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won’t get to know the reviewer's identity. The idea is that everyone should get a similar and unbiased review.

 
Reviewers’ Responsibilities

(http://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Peer%20review%20guidelines.pdf)

If Scientific Journal of Engineering Research (SJER)’s Editor has invited you to review a manuscript, please consider the following items:

  • Reviewing manuscript critically but constructively and preparing detailed comments about the manuscript to help authors improve their research;
  • Reviewing multiple versions of a manuscript as necessary;
  • Providing all required information within established deadlines;
  • Making recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal;
  • Declaring to the editor any potential conflicts of interest concerning the authors or the content of a manuscript they are asked to review;
  • Reporting possible research misconducts;
  • Suggesting alternative reviewers in case they cannot review the manuscript for any reasons;
  • Treating the manuscript as a confidential document;
  • Not making any use of the work described in the manuscript;
  • Not communicating directly with authors if somehow they identify the authors;
  • Not identifying themselves as authors;
  • Not passing on the assigned manuscript to another reviewer;
  • Ensuring that the manuscript is of high quality and original research;
  • Informing the editor if he/she finds the assigned manuscript is under consideration in any other publication to his/her knowledge;
  • Writing a review report in English only;
  • Authoring a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript.

What should be checked while reviewing a manuscript?

  • Novelty;
  • Originality;
  • Scientific reliability;
  • A valuable contribution to science;
  • Adding new aspects to the existing field of study;
  • Ethical aspects;
  • Structure of the article submitted and its relevance to authors’ guidelines;
  • References provided to substantiate the content;
  • Grammar, punctuation, and spelling;
  • Scientific misconduct.
Editors first review the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the SJER  focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using the Plagiarism X Checker. The decision is accepted or rejected for the review process. The manuscript will be sent to at least three anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review), which means that the reviewers of the paper won’t get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won’t get to know the identity of the reviewer. The idea is that everyone should get a similar and unbiased review. Reviewers' comments and suggested decisions are then sent to the editor. The editors will evaluate the reviewer's comments and a suggested decision. Afterward, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. The decision is accepted, revised, or rejected.

 

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

 

Publication Frequency

SJER is a rapid journal that will publish four-issue a year in the period of January-March, April-June, July-September, and October-December.

 

 

Publications Ethics

Scientific Journal of Engineering Research (SJER) is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures to prevent publication malpractice. The Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring the prevention of unethical behavior. Unethical conduct is not tolerated, and SJER maintains a strict no-tolerance policy against plagiarism in all forms. Authors submitting articles affirm that the contents of the manuscript are original. Additionally, the authors’ submission implies that the manuscript has not been previously published in any language, either wholly or in part, and is not concurrently under consideration for publication elsewhere. All editors, authors, and reviewers involved in SJER are expected to adhere to the highest publication standards and accept the responsibility of fulfilling the duties outlined in the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. For more information on the Code of Conduct, see: COPE Guidelines.

Section A: Publication and Authorship

  • All submitted papers undergo a rigorous peer-review process conducted by experts in the relevant field.
  • The review process is double-blind.
  • Reviews are based on several factors, including relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
  • The possible decisions for a manuscript include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  • Authors may be asked to revise and resubmit their submission, but there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  • Rejected manuscripts will not be re-reviewed.
  • The acceptance of manuscripts is subject to legal considerations, including issues of libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.
  • No research can be published in more than one journal.

Section B: Authors’ Responsibilities

  • Authors must confirm that their manuscript is their original work.
  • Authors must ensure that the manuscript has not been previously published elsewhere.
  • Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently under consideration for publication elsewhere.
  • Authors are required to actively engage in the peer-review process.
  • Authors must provide corrections or retractions if errors are discovered.
  • All authors listed in the paper must have made substantial contributions to the research.
  • Authors must ensure that all data presented in the paper are accurate and authentic.
  • Authors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the Editors.
  • All sources used in the creation of the manuscript must be properly identified.
  • Authors must notify the Editors of any errors found in their published paper.

Section C: Reviewers’ Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are required to treat all information regarding submitted papers as confidential and privileged.
  • Reviews should be objective and free from personal criticism of the authors.
  • Reviewers must express their views clearly, providing supporting arguments.
  • Reviewers should identify any relevant published works that the authors have not cited.
  • If a reviewer detects substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and other published works of which they are aware, they should report this to the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Reviewers must not evaluate manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other professional relationships with the authors, institutions, or companies involved.

Section D: Editors’ Responsibilities

  • Editors have the sole responsibility and authority to accept or reject a manuscript.
  • Editors are responsible for ensuring the overall quality and content of the journal.
  • Editors must consider the needs of both authors and readers when working to improve the publication.
  • Editors must guarantee the integrity of the academic record and the quality of the papers published.
  • If necessary, editors should publish errata or make corrections to previously published papers.
  • Editors should be aware of research funding sources and disclose any relevant information.
  • Decisions should be based on the importance, originality, clarity, and relevance of the manuscript to the scope of the journal.
  • Editors should not reverse their decisions without serious cause.
  • Editors must protect the anonymity of reviewers.
  • Editors are responsible for ensuring that all published material complies with internationally accepted ethical standards.
  • Editors should only accept papers when they are reasonably confident of their quality and validity.
  • Editors must take action if they suspect misconduct, whether in published or unpublished papers, and should make reasonable efforts to resolve any issues.
  • Editors should not accept papers based on suspicion alone, but should have clear evidence of misconduct.
  • Editors must avoid any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers, and board members.
     
 
 

Plagiarism Policy

An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated whether it has a similarity score by using Turnitin and the Plagiarism X Checker. The maximal plagiarism is 30%, with each source maximal 4%. It will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

 

 

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

The author is not allowed to withdraw the submitted manuscripts because the withdrawal wastes valuable resources from editors and reviewers who spent a great deal of time processing the submitted manuscripts and works invested by the Publisher. However, the authors could suggest the withdrawal if there is no updated progress review information after six months from our side.

 

 

Retraction

The papers published in the International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems will be considered to retract in the publication if:

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g., data fabrication) or honest error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follows the Retraction Guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), which can be accessed at Retraction Guidelines.

 

 

Conflict of Interest

All authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence or bias their work. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include but are not limited to financial interests (such as membership, employment, consultancies, stocks/shares ownership, honoraria, grants or other funding, paid expert testimonies, and patent-licensing arrangements) and non-financial interests (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, personal beliefs).

See below for examples of disclosures:

Conflicts of Interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stocks in Company Y. Author C has been involved as a consultant and expert witness in Company Z. Author D is the inventor of patent X.

If no conflicts exist, the authors should state:

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

 

 

Ethical Guidance

Ethical Oversight

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), ethical oversight should include but is not limited to, policies on consent to publication, publication on vulnerable populations, ethical conduct of research using animals, ethical conduct of research using human subjects, handling confidential data and ethical business/marketing practices. The International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems is committed to considering appeals concerning our authors' non-observance of ethical principles.

Research Involving Human Subjects

When reporting studies that involve human participants, authors should include a statement that the studies have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and have been performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1975 Declaration of Helsinki (https://www.wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/), revised in 2013, and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

If doubt exists whether the research was conducted in accordance with the 1975 Helsinki Declaration or comparable standards, the authors must explain the reasons for their approach and demonstrate that the independent ethics committee or institutional review board explicitly approved the doubtful aspects of the study. At a minimum, a statement including the project identification code, date of approval, and name of the ethics committee or institutional review board should be stated in Section ‘Ethical Approval’ of the article.

An example of an ethical statement: "All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion before participating in the study. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of XXX (Project identification code)."

Use of Animals in Research

The welfare of animals used for research must be respected. When reporting experiments on animals, authors should indicate whether the international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals have been followed and that the studies have been approved by a research ethics committee at the institution or practice at which the studies were conducted (where such a committee exists).

The International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems endorses the ARRIVE guidelines (https://arriveguidelines.org/arrive-guidelines) for reporting experiments using live animals. Authors and reviewers can use the ARRIVE guidelines as a checklist, which can be found at: https://arriveguidelines.org/resources/author-checklists.

Research Involving Cell Lines

Methods sections for submissions reporting on research with cell lines should state the origin of any cell lines. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated, and references must also be given to either a published paper or a commercial source. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including those gifted from another laboratory, details of institutional review board or ethics committee approval must be given, and confirmation of written informed consent must be provided if the line is of human origin.

Example of an ethical statement: "The HCT116 cell line was obtained from XXX. The MLH1+ cell line was provided by XXX, Ltd. The DLD-1 cell line was obtained from Dr. XXX. The DR-GFP and SA-GFP reporter plasmids were obtained from Dr. XXX, and the Rad51K133A expression vector was obtained from Dr. XXX."

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research on plants (either cultivated or wild), including a collection of plant material, must comply with institutional, national, or international guidelines. We recommend that authors comply with the CBD (https://www.cbd.int/convention/) and the CITES (https://cites.org/eng).

For each submitted manuscript supporting genetic information and origin must be provided. For research manuscripts involving rare and non-model plants (other than, e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Nicotiana benthamiana, Oriza sativa, or many other typical model plants), voucher specimens must be deposited in an accessible herbarium or museum. Vouchers may be requested for review by future investigators to verify the identity of the material used in the study (especially if taxonomic rearrangements occur in the future). They should include details of the populations sampled on the site of collection (GPS coordinates), date of collection, and document the part(s) used in the study where appropriate. For rare, threatened, or endangered species, this can be waived, but it is necessary for the author to describe this in the cover letter.

Example of an ethical statement: "Torenia fournieri plants were used in this study. White-flowered Crown White (CrW) and violet-flowered Crown Violet (CrV) cultivars selected from ‘Crown Mix’ (XXX Company, City, Country) were kindly provided by Dr. XXX (XXX Institute, City, Country).".

 

 

Advertising Policy

At present, we do not publish any advertisements in SJER.

 

 

Allegations of Misconduct

Plagiarism

Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:

  • Directly copying text from other sources without attribution
  • Copying ideas, images, or data from other sources without attribution
  • Reusing text from your own previous publications without attribution or agreement of the editor
  • Exception: Reusing text from the Methods section in the author’s previous publications, with attribution to the source, is acceptable.
  • Using an idea from another source with slightly modified language without attribution.

If plagiarism is detected during the peer review process, the manuscript may be rejected. If plagiarism is detected after publication, we may issue a correction or retract the paper as appropriate.

Data fabrication 

This concerns the making up of research findings.

  • Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
  • Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript

Data falsification 

Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This includes manipulating images (e.g., micrographs, gels, radiological images), removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, adding or omitting data points, etc.

Duplicate submissions

Duplicate submission is a situation whereby an author submits the same or similar manuscripts to two different journals at the same time, either within Academic Journals or any other publisher. This includes the submission of manuscripts derived from the same data in such a manner that there are no substantial differences in the manuscripts. Duplicate submission also includes the submission of the same/similar manuscript in different languages to different journals.

Authorship Issues

Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributorship, as well as processes for managing potential disputes.

Citation Manipulation

Citation Manipulation includes excessive citations in the submitted manuscript that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely for the purpose of increasing citations to a given author’s work or to articles published in a particular journal. This leads to misrepresenting the importance of the specific work and journal in which it appears and is thus a form of scientific misconduct.

Suspected Manipulation of Peer Review/Bias of Peer Reviews

International Journal of Robotics and Control Systems selects the reviewers on any manuscript with due care so as to avoid any conflict of interest between the reviewers and the authors. Our policy is compliant with COPE Guidelines on peer review.

 

 

Errata and Corrigenda

Changes/additions to accepted articles

All content of published articles is subject to the editorial review process, organized by and under the auspices of the editor. Should the authors wish to add to their article after acceptance, they must submit a request to the editor, and the new content will be reviewed.

  • If the new material is added to the accepted article, it must be submitted for peer review as a new manuscript, referring back to the original;
  • If the new material should replace the original content of the accepted article, the editor may consider the publication of an erratum or a corrigendum.

Erratum

An erratum is a correction of errors introduced to the article by the publisher.

All publisher-introduced changes are highlighted to the author at the proof stage, and any errors are ideally identified by the author and corrected by the publisher before final publication.

Corrigendum

A corrigendum refers to a change to the article that the author wishes to publish at any time after acceptance. Authors should contact the journal editor, who will determine the impact of the change and decide on the appropriate course of action.