STATEMENT OF CONDUCT SCIENTIFIC PERIODICALS
Peer reviewers are required to provide recommendations to help authors to improve the quality of published manuscripts and editor in determining the editorial policy, in accordance with their respective expertise.
Peer reviewers should inform the editor about the willingness to do a review on the manuscript to be published. If unwilling, peer reviewers must notify the editor.
The reviewed manuscript is a confidential document. Communication with other parties without the author's permission is prohibited.
3. Standard Objectivity
Peer reviewers must take hold on the principles of objectivity and avoiding personal criticism against the author of the manuscript during the review process. All comments must be accompanied by clear and supportive suggestions.
4. Reference Clarity
Peer Reviewers are recommended to provide information to the authors of the research with the literature, or relevant case studies which have not been cited, having a substantial similarity or overlap with the manuscripts reviewed.
5. Conflicts of Interest
- Peer reviewers are not allowed to use unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
- The information and ideas contained in the reviewed manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed or used for personal gain.
- If having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, peer reviewers are not permitted to evaluate the related manuscript.
1. Publication Decision
Decision making of the published manuscript is the liability of the editor based on the policies and guidelines of the editorial board as well as based on compliance with legal requirements, such as not containing any information that harm others or containing slander, copyright disputes, and plagiarism. Communication with other editors or peer reviewers is acceptable to support the decision-making of the publication of the manuscript. Issuance decisions cannot be made by an editor based on personal considerations.
Editors must be able to evaluate a manuscript based on its scientific content regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and belief, ethnicity, nationality, or political philosophy of the authors.
All information contained in the manuscript is confidential and should not be distributed except to the author, peer reviewers, prospective peer reviewers, editors, and publishers concerned.
4. Conflicts of Interest
- The editor is not allowed to use the unpublished manuscript material for personal use without the prior written consent of the author, under any circumstances.
- The information and ideas contained in the text which are in the peer-review process is confidential and will not be distributed or used for personal benefit.
- In case of having a conflict of interest for reasons of competition, collaboration, or other relationship with the author, institution or company involved in publishing, the editor is not permitted to evaluate the related texts. Thus, another editor board member should be involved in determining the issuance of the manuscript.
- Editors must ensure that all parties involved in the review process and the publication of the manuscript declare a conflict of interest in the publication of a manuscript, as well as make corrections if a conflict of interest is revealed after the manuscript is published. If necessary, the editor can take appropriate action, such as publishing editorial statements or retraction of the manuscript.
- The share of non peer-reviewed written by the editor should be differentiated and easily identifiable in the scientific periodicals.
5. Involvement and Collaboration in the Investigation
Reports related to actions that do not comply with the ethics of publishing are justified, even many years after the manuscript was published. The report must be addressed by the editor. Editors should contact the author and establish communication with the institution or entity related to the report. Correction, retraction, or other editorial notes should be published as a form of official response to the report complaints.
6. Fatal Error on Published Manuscript
If the editor or others encountered a fatal error and inaccuracies in the published manuscript, the editor should immediately notify the author and request his/her correction or retraction.
1. Writing standard
2. The author should comply with the following standards for preparing the manuscript to be published in the scientific periodicals:
- Presenting accurate (using controlled and specific protocols/ procedures), reliable, repeatable, précised, and validated data.
- Presenting sufficient details and references so as to ease other parties to repeat the research steps in the text.
- Differentiating personal opinion from accurate and objective scientific statement on the basis of references.
3. Data Access and Retention
Access of raw data should be granted for the purpose of editorial review.
4. Originality and Plagiarism
The manuscript should contain research of original. Any citation or adaptation of the previously published author, research should be clearly stated. All forms of plagiarism should be subjected to rejection.
5. Multiple, Repetitive, or Simultaneous Publication
Multiple, repetitive, or simultaneous publication in other publications are things which are objectionable. The manuscript containing same information cannot be submitted or published in other scientific periodicals.
6. Sources of Information and References
Information from personal communication such as conversations, interviews, correspondence, and discussions or activities that are confidential as a manuscript jury or grant application or research funding schemes, should not be used without written permission from the original source or author.
7. Writing Agreement
The main author and all co-authors must approve the final version of the script and signed available submission form of the scientific periodicals.
8. Conflict of Interest
Any indication of conflict of interest should be disclosed as clearly as possible. All financial supports, working relation, consultation, resources ownership, honoraria, paid expert revelation, patent application/registration, grant or other funding scheme should be clearly stated.
9. Fatal Errors in the Published Manuscript
The following actions should be taken if the writer encountered a fatal error in the published manuscript immediately contact the editor of the publisher.
Peer Review Process
This journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer's name is always concealed from the submitting author. Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees for contribution, originality, relevance, and presentation. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. In order to shorten the review process and respond quickly to authors, the Editors may triage a submission and come to a decision without sending the paper for external review. The Editor shall inform you of the results of the review as soon as possible, hopefully in 8 weeks. The Editors’ decision is final and no correspondence can be entered into concerning manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication in this ournal. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.