Manuscript submission means the work has not been previously published (except in summary form, as part of a published conference or any academic thesis, or as an electronic preprint); it has not been evaluated anywhere else for publication; It also means that all authors or the responsible authorities of the work have given their consent to the publication of the work in question, without express or public declaration, and if accepted, its copyright in English or another language such that it cannot be published elsewhere, including electronically, without the permission of the owner.
All articles submitted to Seatific Journal will be uploaded to iThenticate to check the similarity rate of the paper. The Seatific Journal Desk immediately rejects any articles with a similarity rate greater than 10%.
- Seatific Journal asks its editors to write a short commentary on their views that could potentially be seen as influencing their unbiased assessment. Such transparency is a requirement of an ethical obligation to authors and readers, as well as an equal response to the expression of opinion expected from authors, reviewers, and reviewers. The editorial staff is expected to distance themselves from decision-making arrangements that could potentially introduce a disagreement. Editors' duties:
- Publishing Decision
- Disagreements and Statement
- Collaboration to take part in research
Reviewers of Seatific Journal
are chosen from among the experts on the subjects mentioned in the manuscripts. The reasons for their selection are due to their objectivity and scientific knowledge. All those who will make the assessments are informed about what Seatific Journal
expects of them. Each of them is asked to fill in an evaluation form and, if necessary, to prepare a separate report. Persons who have a disagreement on the topic of a manuscript cannot evaluate it (for example, someone who has contributed to or collaborated with one of the authors, or who is unable to provide an objective opinion on the work; also an employee or competitor of an institution whose work is being reviewed, such as people with special political and ideological views). These people should contact the editorial board and state a possible difference of opinion/conflict of interest before the manuscript is submitted to the referee committee.
Reviews are expected to be professional, honest, courteous, punctual, and constructive. The essential elements required for a high-quality assessment are:
- Reviewers should identify the weaknesses and strengths of the work organization and methodology and comment on them.
- Reviewers should accurately and constructively criticize the author's ability to handle data (taking into account that data may be limited).
- Reviewers should identify the strengths and weaknesses of the work as a written communication tool, regardless of its composition, methodology, results, and handling.
- Reviewers should express their thoughts on whether the study has content that may raise ethical concerns or whether it has low scientific standards.
- Reviewers should provide helpful advice to the authors so that the work can be improved.
- Reviewers' criticism should be constructive and professional towards the author.
- The review should provide the editor with the correct perspective and content so that he or she can decide on acceptance (and/or revision) of the work (and/or revision).
- Reviewers are expected to identify unused works and to use citations to indicate which elements of the work have been cited previously. Reviewers should also report striking similarities between the reviewed text and any work published in another journal or submitted to Seatific Journal.
- Reviewers are sensitively expected not to contact the author directly. In many cases, the opinion of two experts will be sought; however, the views of these experts may not be the same as the final decision of the editor on the manuscript in question. Receiving advice from a reviewer, even partial, may give authors the wrong impression of the review process.
All data on manuscripts must be available as supplementary files or stored in an external channel; they should also be made available upon request.
Changes in the Author StaffSeatific Journa
l acknowledges the reorganization and addition or deletion of author names prior to publishing an accepted work. Before publishing the accepted work, requests such as adding, removing, or rearranging the names of the authors should be forwarded to Seatific Journal
's Secretary by the corresponding author. This request should include:
The reason for adding, removing, or rearranging the name in question and the written consent of all authors separately (by e-mail, fax, or letter) stating that they agree with this addition, removal, or rearrangement. It should also include the approval of the author who is being added or removed in such cases.
Requests not originally sent by the corresponding author will be sent by Seatific Journal
's Secretary directly to the author, who must follow the procedure outlined above. The following should be noted: (1) Seatific Journal
's Secretary will notify the journal’s editorial board of such requests, and (2) publication of accepted work in the press will be frozen until consensus is reached on the authoring staff. After the work is published, requests to add, remove, or rearrange author names will no longer be considered.
Authors are required to include a copyright acknowledgment letter with the manuscripts they submit to Seatific Journal. An example of this approval is below.
“The attached manuscript(s), whose author(s) and title(s) are clearly stated below, have been submitted for your consideration to be published in Seatific Journal. This manuscript/these manuscripts has/have not been published anywhere before or sent to another journal for evaluation. If any or all of the manuscripts are accepted for publication, we declare that we accept all subsequent reprint rights of each individual manuscript to belong solely and exclusively to Seatific Journal.
As the undersigned author(s), I/we accept the conditions in the Authors’ Guide and expressly confirm that the paper/articles below have been written in accordance with the ethical rules set forth in this guide. In addition, all the manuscripts in question are original works, have been submitted with the documents of original copyrights, the author(s) has/have transferred all correction and control rights to Seatific Journal, and all rights including proprietary copyrights are retained if the work(s) is/are accepted. I also accept that I have transferred these rights to Seatific Journal.”
Ethics & Policies
In papers to be published in journals, the manuscript should state whether ethics committee permission and/or legal/special permission is required. If it is necessary to obtain these permissions, it should be clearly presented from which institution, on what date, and with what decision or issue number.
Developing the Evaluation ProcessSeatific Journal
’s editors routinely review manuscripts for quality. Evaluation-attributed grading and other evaluator performance characteristics are periodically reviewed to ensure optimal efficiency for Seatific Journal
. Performance measures such as review completion time should be used to review changes during processes that will contribute to the journal’s efficiency. Individual performances are kept confidential. Editors who do not contribute to the quality of Seatific Journal
may be removed from the editorial board.
Information and ideas gained as a referee during the evaluation process are kept confidential and may not be used advantageously in any way. As the application is a privileged notification, it is to be kept strictly confidential.
- The application cannot be taken or copied by the evaluators. In addition, reviewers cannot share the work with their colleagues without the written permission of the editor.
- Reviewers and editors cannot make professional or personal use of the data, interpretations, or topics in the work (unless directly related to the evaluation) or write editorials or commentaries on the work before its publication unless they have the implicit permission of the authors.
- In case of any difference of opinion/conflict of interest, the evaluators should notify the editorial board.
- Evaluators should notify Seatific Journal if they are unable to review any work, or if they can only do so with some delay.
- Evaluators should objectively evaluate the quality of the work in question; make clear, unbiased, and constructive criticisms; and avoid personal criticism of the authors. There is no harm in letting the authors know/see the comments made by the referees. Therefore, the opinions of the referees should be clearly stated and supported so that the authors can understand the basis of the comments and evaluations.
- Reviewers can easily report any violation to the editor if they suspect any and, at the same time, they should strictly not share the status with other parties unless they have been informed by Seatific Journal to do so.