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.
We welcome all your submissions
All published work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License Link . Creative Commons License
NESciences.com © 2015