Thank you for your interest in the Natural and Engineering Sciences (NESciences). You can submit your manuscript or track your submission via Editorial Manager for online submission and manuscript tracking. We look forward to handling your submission.
In order to allow swift consideration of your work, NESciences has relaxed some aspects of manuscript formatting until a manuscript is resubmitted following review and provisional acceptance for publication. Therefore, please carefully follow these instructions to avoid unnecessary delay and possible rejection of your paper.
The aim and scope of NESciences is to publish exciting, high quality science that addresses fundamental questions in Natural and Engineering Sciences. The Author declares that the manuscript is original and has not been published elsewhere in any form, that it has not been submitted to any journal/proceedings and that it will not be submitted to any other journal/proceedings. To verify originality, your article may be checked by the originality detection service Crossref Similarity Check. In the iThenticate and Turnitin Similarity Reports, a maximum overall similarity score of an M&S must be less than 20% without References and less than 30% with References. The Author is responsible for the research and results described in the paper If it is accepted for publication in the NESciences. If the article is a joint work of several authors (co-authors), the Author who submits the article declares that any person named as author (co-author) of the Article is aware of the requirements of this agreement and has agreed to being so named. The Author warrants that the article does not infringe upon any copyright, contains no libelous or otherwise unlawful statements and does not otherwise infringe on the rights of others. The Author transfers the copyright for this publication/article to the Publisher. The Author licenses to the Publisher the right to distribute the Article as a part of NESciences.

Authors must follow the national and international ethical standards for all kind of experiments (both on human beings, and on animals).

Preparation of Manuscripts
Manuscripts must be submitted in electronic version only, as well as the original figures and tables.

Authors are recommended to use their ORCID ID when submitting an article for consideration or acquire an ORCID ID via the submission process.

The text of the manuscript should be single-spaced throughout and with 2,5 mm left and right and 1,25 top and bottom margins, including References, Tables and Figures on A4 paper format using a standard font (e.g. MS Word, Times New Roman, 12 punts). In order to facilitate the review process, line numbers should be inserted throughout the manuscript.

The structure of the manuscript
1. Title
2. Abstract
3. Keywords
4. Introduction
5. Materials and Methods
6. Results
7. Discussion
8. Acknowledgments
9. Funding Source
10. Author Contributions
11. Data Availability Statement
12. Conflicts/Competing of Interests
13. Compliance with Ethical Standards
14. References

1. Title

A concise and informative title should be given, and the title should be in sentence format. The title should be in lower case form. Below the title; authors full name, authors affiliations, and mark "*" by corresponding author. The e-mail address of the corresponding author author must be placed. The address of every author’s primary affiliation (university, research institute, etc.) must be given in full. Ideally, no more than one address per author should appear.

2. Abstract

The abstract should not exceed 250 words in research papers, the abstract should not contain any undefined abbreviations or unspecified references.

3. Keywords

Please provide 3 to 5 keywords which can be used for indexing purposes.

Main Text

The main text comprises 4. Introduction, 5. Materials and Methods, 6. Results, 7. Discussion episodes.

For submission in MS-Word format, Table and Figures must be embedded within the text using Arabic numbers, e.g. Figure 1, Figure 2, Table 1, Table 2 etc., in order of appearance.
One line space must be given before and after Tables and Figures in the text.
The preferred position of tables and figures in the text should be indicated in the left-hand margin.
Figure captions and table headings should be sufficient to explain the figure or table without needing to refer to the text.
Figures and Tables not cited in the text should not be presented.
Photographs (only in JPEG format) should have a resolution of 600 to 1200 dpi (line drawings) in relation to the reproduction size.
Only high-contrast photographic material is suitable for reproduction.
Figures and Tables must be limited to an essential minimum, at most 9 for each.
There should not be a line inside the table, but there should be line at the top and bottom side of the Tables.
Figure captions should be in Times New Roman font and 12 point font size.
There should not be a line at main outline of the Figure.
Original contributions should not exceed 15 manuscript pages, all single-spaced.
Authors must obtain permission from the copyright owner or cite the author to use any figure, table or map that has previously been published.
At the end of Discussion, a Conclusion should be included.
The Authors should include a statement on the welfare of animals in the Materials and Methods as Compliance with Ethical Standards if the research involved animals when submitting a paper.
The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned statement.
Citing in text

Articles cited in the text should be referred to as follows: By the surname of the author(s) with year of publication in parenthesis. Example: Charvalho & Turan (2018).

If both are in parenthesis, no punctuation separates the name(s) of the author and the year of publication. Example: (Carvalho & Turan, 2017).

If there are more than two authors only the senior author’s name is given. Example: (Carvalho et al., 2017).

Abbreviations

Abbreviations should be defined at first mention and used consistently thereafter.

Footnotes

Footnotes can be used to give additional information, which may include the citation of a reference included in the reference list.

Footnotes to the text are numbered consecutively; those to tables should be indicated by superscript lower-case letters (or asterisks for significance values and other statistical data).

8. Acknowledgments

Authors can thank any help obtained during the research and indicate funding with Grant number.

9. Funding Source

You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s). If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated.

10. Author Contributions

For transparency, we encourage authors to designate with an author statement outlining their individual contributions to the paper.

11. Data Availability Statement

Authors should provide a data availability statement with the submission. Following are few examples of such statement
The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository name] at [doi], reference number [reference number].
The data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [initials].
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
12. Conflicts of Interest/Competing Interests

Any existing conflicts of interest/competing interest should be given here.

If no conflict/competing exists, the authors should state: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

13. Compliance with Ethical Standards

The studies involving humans and/or animals rights must have been approved by the appropriate institutional and/or national research ethics committee and performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals should have been followed.
Therefore, additional declarations for articles that report the results of studies involving humans and/or animals are required.
For this reason, during the submission, the authors are asked to include the following statements in a separate section entitled “Compliance with Ethical Standards” to declare whether the results of study involve humans and/or animals rights.

If no, the authors declare that the results of study do not involve humans and/or animals rights.

If yes, the corresponding author should fill Statement for the Ethics Committee Approval Form (given below) and submit it during M&S submission.

The Editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the above-mentioned guidelines. The author will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned guidelines.

14. References

References should be listed in alphabetical order according to the name of the first author.

Use the Following Examples for Arranging the References:

Journal

If there is a DOI number in journal references, it must be given.

Vella, N., Vella, A., & Mifsud, C. (2017). First Scientific Records of the Invasive Red Swamp Crayfish, Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852) (Crustacea: Cambaridae) in Malta, a Threat to Fragile Freshwater Habitats. Natural and Engineering Sciences, 2(2), 58-66. https://doi.org/10.28978/nesciences.328931

Book

Turan, C. (Ed.) (2007). Atlas and Systematics of Marine Bony Fishes of Turkey. 1st edition, Nobel Publishing House, Adana, Turkey.

Rick, S. (2008). The Electronic Engineering K. Chair & M. Chapman (Eds.). New York, NY: Anchor.

Book Chapter

Turan. C., Öztürk, B., Ergüden, D., Gürlek, M., Yağlıoğlu, D., & Uygur, N. (2007). Atlas of Bony Fishes of Turkey. pp. 83-485. In: C. Turan (Ed.), Atlas and Systematics of Marine Bony Fishes of Turkey. 1st edition, Nobel Publishing House, Adana, Turkey.

Bauchot, M. L. (1987). Poissons osseux. pp. 891-1421. In: W. Fischer, M.L. Bauchot and M. Schneider (Eds), Fiches FAO didentification pour les besoins de la pêche. (rev. 1). Méditerranée et mer Noire. Zone de pêche 37. Vol. II. Commission des Communautés Européennes and FAO, Rome.

Proceedings paper

Ibrahım, S., El-Gnainy, A., Imam, N., Fadel, A., Abouzied, A. (2017). Effect of Gamma Rays on Nutritive Value and Vibrio Alginlyticus of Pufferfish (Lagocephalus sceleratus) Fillets. In: Book of Abstract. International Symposium on Pufferfish, 13-14 October 2017, Bodrum, Turkey. p.13.

Theses

Erguden, D. (2002). The Determination of Morphologic and Genetic Structure of Seabass in Turkish Seas. Msc Thesis. University of Mustafa Kemal, Hatay, p 72.

Translation
Laplace, P. S. (1951). A philosophical essay on probabilities. (F. W. Truscott & F. L. Emory, Trans.). New York, NY: Dover. (Original work published 1814).

Websites
Froese, R., & Pauly. D. (Eds). (2018). FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org, version (02/2018).

Organizations

FAO. (2006). Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005, FAO Forestry Paper 147. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/a0400e (28.05.12).

Copyright Form

After acceptance of the manuscript, the "Copyright Form" must be filled in completely and signed by the corresponding author on behalf of all authors, and attached with the revised M&S.

Suggesting reviewers

During the M&S submission in the Editorial Manager Sytem, corresponding author must submit names of at least three (3) potential reviewers with their affiliations and email addresses. However, Editor will select the reviewers finally and they may be selected outside suggested reviewers by the corresponding author.

Processing and Publication Fee

Natural and Engineering Sciences does not require any processing and publication fee.

The Editor may return any unreviewed manuscript that falls outside the journal’s policy or scope.

All other manuscripts will be peer-reviewed by at least two external referees.

Publication Ethics

Natural and Engineering Sciences (NESciences) conducts best practice guidelines in order to ensure that publication ethics are maintained throughout the publication processes. NESciences abides by the following principles defined by COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (https://publicationethics.org/resources/code-conduct) and principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing specified by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Peer-reviewed studies are those that embody and comply with the scientific method, and thus ensure quality standards, improvement of performance, and credibility in science.
Consequently, it is important that all stakeholders (authors, readers, researchers, publishers, referees and editors) comply with the ethical principles and standards. Within this framework, Natural and Engineering Sciences (NESciences) expects all stakeholders to have the following ethical responsibilities as a part of its publication ethics.

Ethical Responsibilities of Authors

1. The manuscript has not been published and is not being submitted or considered for publication elsewhere.
2. The authors are required to make a full and correct reference to other studies. APA 6 guidelines for citation and bibliography should be taken into account.
3. Submission of an article implies that the presented work and results have not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere, and that its publication is approved by all authors. All authors are requested to disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
4. Authors have to be prepared to share raw data assessed in the manuscript and any related information if so requested by the editorial board within the framework of the evaluation process.
5. The text, illustrations, and any other material included in the manuscript do not infringe upon any existing copyright or other rights.
6. All authors participated in the work in a substantial way and are prepared to take public responsibility for the work and manuscript contents.
7. In case of plagiarism detected by the editorial board in a submitted or accepted manuscript, the full responsibility lies with the authors. The publisher has the right to reject and/or retract the manuscript in case of plagiarism, even it was previously accepted. The authors are not able to object to the decision made by the journal.
8. Authors of published articles (and/or their employers or institutions) are not allowed to reuse published works without permisson.
9. Authors are expected to consider carefully the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript and provide the definitive list of authors at the time of the original submission. Any addition, deletion or rearrangement of author names in the authorship list should be made only before the manuscript has been accepted and only if approved by the journal Editor. To request such a change, the Editor must receive the following from the corresponding author: (a) the reason for the change in authors list and (b) written confirmation from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In the case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed.
10. All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence their work.
11. Authors are requested to fully declare all sources of funding received for the research submitted to the Journal.

Ethical Responsibilities of Editors

1. All manuscripts are judged based on the intellectual contents, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, citizenship or political values of the authors.
2. Personal information related to the articles shall be kept confidential.
3. All identified conflicts of interest of Editorial Board members, and the observed conflicts of interest and plagiarism identified in manuscripts and published articles must be disclosed.
4. The Editorial Board shall assume responsibility for making publication decisions for the manuscripts submitted, based on the evaluation of the candidate article, the policies of the editorial board and the copyright infringement rules.
5. Double-blind review system with at least two reviewers is used to evaluate manuscripts for publication.
6. Editors have the right to reject the manuscripts without peer-review when the manuscript:
a) is on a topic outside the scope of the Journal,
b) lacks technical merit,
c) exhibits narrow regional scope and significance,
d) presents conflicting results,
e) is poorly written,
f) represents a case of scientific misconduct.
g) When the journal is overburdened with too many submissions, editors have the right to reject manuscripts without peer review based on their perceived merit.

Editors are responsible for the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection of articles.

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Before accepting to review the manuscript:

1. Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents. This means that they cannot be shared without prior authorization from the editor and authors.
2. Reviewers should keep the ideas obtained through peer review confidential, and not use them for personal advantage.
3. Reviewers should provide objective peer review, with clear and well-founded comments and submitted in a timely manner
4. Reviewers should decline the invitation for peer review if they feel unqualified to provide a relevant report, have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the reviewed manuscript.
5. Assessment of the manuscript should be made in an objective manner, and be based exclusively on the contents of the study. It should not allow nationality, gender, religious beliefs, political beliefs and commercial concerns to influence the assessment.

Once the invitation to review the manuscript is accepted, reviewers should first check if the manuscript is reporting original research, and if so, first step of the review should be to check the methodology:

1. If the methodology is unreliable or invalid;
2. If there is any relevant part of the methods missing;
3. If there are any contradictions between conclusions and statistical or qualitative evidence reported in the manuscript.

For a general review, please use our checklist for reviewers in NESciences:
1. Summarize the article in a short paragraph. This shows the editor that you have read and understood the research.
2. Provide your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting,
3. Assess whether the article conforms to the journal-specific instructions (i.e., the guidelines for authors).
4. Give specific comments and suggestions about all the elements of the manuscript, e.g. title and the abstract: Does the title accurately reflect the content? Is the abstract complete and sufficiently informative?
5. Carefully review the methodology, statistical errors, results, discussion / conclusions, and references.
6. Inform the editor if you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, providing as much detail as possible.
7. Be aware of the possibility for bias in your review. Unconscious bias can lead reviewers to make questionable decisions which can negatively impact academic publishing process
8. Do not make ad hominem comments.
9. Do not suggest to the authors to include citations to your own or your associates’ publications, unless for genuine scientific reasons.

Rights granted to NESciences

Natural and Engineering Sciences reserves the right to reject a paper even after it has been accepted, if it becomes apparent that there are serious problems with its scientific content, or the publishing policies of journal have been violated.

NESciences reserves the right to provide the article in all forms and media, so the article can be used by the latest technology even after its publication.

Open Access Policy

All research articles published in NESciences are fully open access: immediately freely available to read, download and share. Articles are published under the terms of a Creative Commons license which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

The practice of peer review in Natural and Engineering Sciences is to ensure that only good science is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Therefore, our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards Transport Policy and all manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation The Editor first evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are passed on to at least 2 experts for review.

Type of Peer Review Transport Policy employs double blind reviewing, where both the referee and author remain anonymous throughout the process.

How the referee is selected Whenever possible, referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated.

Referee reports Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript: - Is original - Is methodologically sound - Follows appropriate ethical guidelines - Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions - Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript.

How long does the review process take? The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees. Should the referee’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, or when the one referee’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one referee’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the referees, which usually includes verbatim comments by the referees. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial referees who may then request another revision of a manuscript.

Final report A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the referees, and may include verbatim comments by the referees.

Editor’s Decision is final Referees advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.Becoming a referee for Transport Policy If you are not currently a referee for Transport Policy but would like to be considered as a referee, please contact the editor. The benefits of refereeing for Transport Policy include the opportunity to read see and evaluate the latest work in your research area at an early stage, and to contribute to the overall integrity of scientific research and its published documentation. You may also be able to cite your work for Transport Policy as part of your professional development requirements for various Professional Societies and Organisations.