Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The Science, Engineering and Technology journal is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and transparency in scholarly publishing. The journal adheres to internationally recognized ethical principles and best practices to ensure the credibility, reliability, and academic value of the published record.

This Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement outlines the ethical responsibilities and expected conduct of all parties involved in the publication process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher. It defines the journal’s policies on research integrity, peer review, conflicts of interest, authorship, data availability, the ethical use of AI tools, plagiarism, corrections, retractions, and article withdrawal.

The journal applies rigorous editorial oversight and a double-blind peer review process to safeguard objectivity, fairness, and academic quality. Any suspected cases of research misconduct, unethical behavior, or deviations from established ethical standards are handled transparently, confidentially, and in accordance with applicable guidelines.

For all aspects not explicitly addressed in this statement, the journal adheres to the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, as well as relevant COPE guidance and recommendations.

Responsibilities of Editors, Reviewers, and Authors

Editorial Team responsibilities:

Editors play a crucial role in upholding publication ethics and ensuring the integrity and quality of the research published in Science, Engineering and Technology journal. The key responsibilities of editors include:

Publication Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief (or, where delegated, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief) may either oversee a submission directly or appoint a qualified member of the Editorial Team as the Handling Editor (Editor), based on subject expertise, workload balance, and the absence of conflicts of interest. Handling editors evaluate whether an article should be sent for external peer review, request revisions, and make recommendations regarding acceptance or rejection in light of reviewers’ feedback and subsequent revisions. All editorial decisions are made solely on the academic merit and intellectual quality of the work, without regard to the authors’ identity, affiliation, or personal background.
Conflict of Interest: Editors must not handle articles where a real, potential, or perceived conflict of interest exists, including prior collaboration, shared institutional affiliation, personal or financial ties, or authorship. Submissions by members of the Editorial Team, including Guest Editors (for Special Issues), are managed by an alternative editor and undergo a fully independent double-blind peer review. All conflicts of interest must be declared in writing and disclosed in the article when relevant.
Fair and Impartial Review: Editors are responsible for ensuring that the peer review process is fair, impartial, timely, and transparent. Editors unable to evaluate an article objectively must decline the assignment. Separation of roles is strictly enforced: no individual may act as both Handling Editor and reviewer of the same article.
Peer Review and Coordination: Editors oversee communication and coordination among authors, reviewers, and other editorial staff, ensuring that timelines, quality standards, and ethical guidelines are upheld throughout the process. Members of the Editorial Team may contribute as reviewers, but their roles remain clearly separated to maintain transparency and impartiality.
Confidentiality: Editors must protect the confidentiality of all submitted articles and related materials. Article content may not be shared outside of those directly involved in the editorial process and must not be used in an editor’s own research without the authors’ explicit written consent.
Integrity and Quality: Editors actively work to detect and address plagiarism, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct. They ensure the originality, scientific validity, and overall quality of published content, and are responsible for issuing corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when necessary.
Transparency and Accountability: Editors provide clear guidance to authors and reviewers, maintain accountability for their decisions, and promptly address concerns, appeals, or ethical issues. They serve in an advisory role, encouraging high-quality submissions and promoting the journal within the academic community.
Editorial Independence: The journal maintains full editorial independence from its publishers, sponsors, or any external influence. All editorial decisions are based exclusively on scholarly merit and follow a rigorous, unbiased peer review process. By accepting their roles, all members of the Editorial Team commit to upholding these principles of editorial integrity and independence, ensuring that published content represents genuine scientific contributions free from commercial, political, or institutional interference.

Note: In addition to their defined roles and responsibilities, all members of the Editorial Team are expected to adhere to the COPE (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors).

Reviewers' responsibilities:

Reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research published in the Science, Engineering, and Technology journal. Through thorough, objective, and constructive evaluations, they contribute to raising scientific standards and improving the clarity, relevance, and reliability of published work. By adhering to principles of ethical review, reviewers reinforce the credibility, transparency, and trustworthiness of the peer-review process and the scholarly record. Basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer review process include:

Expert Evaluation: Reviewers should provide an expert and unbiased evaluation of the submitted article. This involves assessing various aspects such as originality, methodology, significance, and validity while adhering to ethical guidelines. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers are encouraged to suggest additional material that would enhance the value of the article. They should feel free to propose approaches they believe would make the article more useful. Reviewers are welcome to provide comments to help the author(s) focus on the highlighted issues they have raised in the review process. Reviewers may, where appropriate, suggest additional qualified reviewers. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the article or believes they cannot provide an impartial review, they should decline the review request. We encourage reviewers to familiarize themselves with the Peer Review Policy in detail.
Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their impartiality in reviewing a particular article. If a conflict exists, they should decline the review or inform the editor for alternative arrangements. Reviewers who accept their role agree to abide by rules regarding conflicts of interest.
Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all articles and associated materials as confidential documents. They should not share, discuss, or use the information contained in the article for personal gain. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article must not be used in the reviewer's research or shared with anyone without the author's express written consent.
Timely Review: Reviewers should conduct the review process promptly and adhere to the agreed-upon timeline for providing their feedback to the editor. If unable to meet deadlines, they should promptly inform the Editor.
Constructive Feedback: Providing constructive, objective, and clear feedback is essential. Reviewers should focus on both strengths and weaknesses of the article, helping authors improve the quality of their research. Reviews should respect the intellectual independence of the author. If something is unclear due to the language issues, please address this issue.
Citation and Attribution: Ensuring proper citation and attribution of others' work is crucial. Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that has not been cited and bring it to the author's and/or editor's attention.
Ethical Guidelines: Reviewers are expected to be familiar with the journal’s Publication Ethics, peer review procedures, and policies related to conflicts of interest, data and materials availability, and sharing of research materials. They should remain alert to potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism, data fabrication, or undeclared conflicts of interest, and promptly report any such issues to the Handling Editor. Reviewers must not use information obtained through the peer review process for personal gain or to disadvantage or discredit others.

We recommend that reviewers follow the COPE Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers, ensuring objectivity, confidentiality, and integrity throughout the review process. Overall, adherence to these responsibilities ensures the credibility and trustworthiness of the peer review system and scholarly publishing process.

Authors responsibilities:

Authors play a critical role in upholding publication ethics and ensuring the integrity of the scientific record in the Science, Engineering and Technology journal. Adherence to ethical publishing practices is essential for maintaining the trust of readers, reviewers, and the broader scientific community. The main responsibilities of authors include:

Originality and Authenticity: Authors are responsible for ensuring that their submitted work is entirely original and authentic. Submissions must not be under consideration by, or previously published in, any other journal or conference, in any language (except for preprints as outlined in the Preprint Policy). Plagiarism, data fabrication, and falsification of research findings are strictly prohibited. When using generative AI tools, authors must adhere to the journal’s policy on the Ethical Use of AI Tools, ensuring the integrity and transparency of their research process.
Authorship and Contributorship Policy: Authors should appropriately credit all individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research. They should ensure that all listed authors meet the criteria for authorship and that no deserving contributors are excluded from the author list. For transparency, we encourage corresponding authors to provide co-author contributions to the article using the relevant CRediT (Contributor Roles Taxonomy). The authorship of a scientific article is an important aspect of scholarly communication, and we expect all authors to adhere to the following guidelines: 1. Authorship Criteria: Authorship should be based on substantial contributions to the work. For transparency, authors are encouraged to describe individual contributions using the CRediT Taxonomy. All listed authors must have contributed significantly to the work and should be able to take public responsibility for the content. 2. Authorship Responsibilities: Authors should be familiar with the content of the article and take collective responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the reported research. They should review and approve the final version of the article before submission. 3. Corresponding Author: Each article should have a corresponding author who will serve as the primary point of contact with the Editor during the peer review and publication process. The corresponding author should be able to coordinate communications among co-authors and with the journal. 4. Adding or Removing Authors: Any changes to the author list, including additions or removals, after initial submission require the agreement of all authors. Changes in authorship must be justified and approved by all affected parties. 5. Contributions Disclosure: Authors are encouraged to clearly state the contributions of each author to the research. This information should be provided in the article or as part of the cover letter during submission. 6. Guest and Gift Authors: The inclusion of individuals who have not made substantial contributions to the research (guest authors) or the omission of individuals who have made significant contributions (ghost authors) is considered unethical. All authors must meet the criteria for authorship. 7. Authorship Disputes: In the case of authorship disputes or disagreements, the journal will follow the Authorship conflict guidelines of the COPE and may request documentation to resolve the matter.
Acknowledgments: Contributions that do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged in the acknowledgments section of the article. Authors should acknowledge the contributions of individuals, organizations, or funding agencies that have provided support or assistance to the research.
Plagiarism and Misconduct: Authors are expected to adhere to the journal's policies on plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of research misconduct. Any breach of ethical standards may result in appropriate actions, including retraction of the published article.
Proper Citation and Referencing: Authors should provide accurate and complete citations for all sources used in their research. They should properly attribute the work of others and refrain from self-plagiarism, which involves reusing their own previously published work without appropriate citation.
Data Integrity: Authors should accurately and transparently report their research data. Manipulation or misrepresentation of data is strictly prohibited.
Data Availability Statement: Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement, indicating whether and how the underlying data supporting the findings can be accessed. They should be prepared to provide the underlying data and research materials to the Editor upon request, ensuring transparency, reproducibility, and adherence to good research practices.
Transparency: Authors should provide sufficient detail, data, and methodological information in the article to enable other researchers to verify, replicate, or build upon the findings.
Peer Review and Corrections: Authors are expected to respond to reviewers’ comments and editorial recommendations in a professional, respectful, and constructive manner. In cases where significant errors or inaccuracies are identified after publication, authors must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief and cooperate fully in issuing corrections, clarifications, or retractions as appropriate.
Ethical Guidelines: Authors should be familiar with and uphold ethical guidelines for authorship. They must be aware of the journal’s policies regarding conflicts of interest and data availability. Additionally, authors must understand and agree to the journal’s Copyright Policy, and confirm that all listed authors have reviewed and approved the final version of the article for submission.
Conflict of Interest: Authors should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could be perceived as influencing the research or its outcomes. This includes financial, personal, or other relationships that may affect the interpretation or reporting of the research. Authors are required to include a 'Competing Interests Statement' in their work.

Required and Optional Statements

The journal requires transparency regarding conflicts of interest and data availability. Authors are expected to provide the necessary declarations in accordance with the Author Guidelines, including Competing Interests and Data Availability Statements, as well as any other relevant disclosures.

Competing Interests Statement

The Science, Engineering and Technology journal defines a conflict of interest (CoI) as any situation in which an individual’s professional, personal, financial, or business interests could improperly influence, or be perceived to influence, editorial decision-making, peer review, or the conduct and reporting of research. A potential CoI arises when circumstances indicate the possibility of such influence, while a perceived CoI exists when a third party might reasonably conclude that an individual’s private interests could affect their editorial judgment.

Competing interests may include, but are not limited to, financial relationships, employment or consultancy arrangements, ownership of patents or intellectual property, personal or professional relationships, recent collaboration, institutional affiliations, or authorship of the submitted work.

It is important for all parties involved in the publication process to disclose any potential competing interests to ensure transparency and maintain the credibility of scientific research. All conflicts of interest must be declared in writing to the publisher and updated as necessary.

Editors should avoid any conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions regarding acceptance of articles. Competing interests for editors can arise in various forms, potentially influencing their decision-making or the direction of the journal. If an editor has a potential competing interest related to a submitted article, they should recuse themselves from the review process and inform the Editor-in-Chief to assign an alternative editor.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality in evaluating an article. If a reviewer identifies a competing interest, they should either decline the review or promptly inform the editor, who may then assign the article to an alternative reviewer. Therefore, reviewers should abstain from reviewing any articles in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved.

Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest upon submission. If no conflicts exist, this should also be explicitly stated in the article. The corresponding author bears the responsibility of ensuring all co-authors are aware of this policy, and submission implies their acknowledgment and agreement. Therefore, corresponding authors, on behalf of all the authors of a submission, must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. It's important to note that the presence of a conflict of interest does not automatically prevent publication.

Data and Materials Availability

The journal supports transparency and reproducibility of research. Authors may be requested to provide underlying data, materials, or custom code to the Editor-in-Chief or Handling Editor for editorial assessment or peer review purposes, where necessary and ethically appropriate.

Authors are expected to include a clear Data Availability Statement describing whether and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed, or explaining any restrictions on data availability.

Where custom software, algorithms, or code are essential to the results, authors should ensure appropriate access conditions are clearly stated, including licensing information and persistent links where applicable. Further technical requirements regarding data and code availability are provided in the Author Guidelines.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are expected to carefully determine the list and order of authors before submitting their article. The final author list must be provided at the time of initial submission. Any requests to add, remove, or rearrange authors should be made prior to the article’s acceptance and require approval by the Handling Editor.

To request such changes, the corresponding author must submit:

a clear justification for the proposed change, and
written confirmation (via online submission system) from all listed authors, including those being added or removed, confirming their agreement with the change.

Requests for authorship changes after article acceptance will only be considered under exceptional circumstances. In such cases, the review and publication process will be temporarily suspended until the matter is resolved. If the article has already been published online, any approved change to the authorship will be reflected through a corrigendum.

Plagiarism Policy

Authors submitting to the Science, Engineering, and Technology journal confirm that their article represents an original research contribution with all sources properly cited. Any material derived from external sources—such as text, figures, tables, data, or other content—must be accurately cited and attributed. Failure to acknowledge the ideas and contributions of others, or to properly cite one’s own previously published work, is considered unethical and misleading. Authors are therefore expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity by adhering to the following principles:

Citations and References: Proper acknowledgment of original authors and publications is essential. Authors are required to furnish accurate and complete citations for all sources used in their research. Borrowed material, whether direct quotations or paraphrased text, must be properly cited and distinguished with quotation marks or indentation.
Use of Figures and Tables: Authors must obtain permission from the original copyright holder for any figures, tables, images, or other copyrighted content included in their article. Proper credit must be attributed to the original source, and permission details should be provided at submission.
Ethical Use of AI Tools: Authors must adhere to ethical guidelines when using AI tools, as outlined in the journal’s dedicated section on the Ethical Use of AI Tools.

Authors should avoid the following practices:

Data Fabrication and Falsification: Data fabrication means the data was not actually collected but is invented. Data falsification means the data was collected but manipulated to produce specific outcomes.
Inappropriate Citation and Acknowledgment: Failure to properly cite material from external sources is a serious ethical breach. Misuse of generative AI tools, including unattributed AI-generated text, may constitute plagiarism or other forms of research misconduct, as addressed in the Ethical Use of AI Tools section.
Redundant Publications: Unjustified fragmentation of research findings (“salami slicing”) intended to artificially increase publication count is discouraged.
Improper Author Attribution: All listed authors must have contributed substantially to the research and approved its findings. It is essential to recognize all contributors and avoid granting authorship to individuals who did not participate significantly. For transparency, corresponding authors are encouraged to detail co-author contributions using the CRediT taxonomy.
Substantial Self-Plagiarism: Authors should avoid self-plagiarism by recycling large portions of their own previously published work without proper citation. Substantial self-plagiarism occurs when authors reuse large portions of their previously published results or discussion without proper citation or permission; only minimal overlap in methods or literature review may be acceptable, provided it is clearly referenced. When reusing content, authors must obtain permission from the copyright holder and provide proper attribution.
Multiple Submissions: Submitting the same article to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical. This practice undermines the integrity of the review process and risks the publication’s reputation if duplicate publications are later identified, possibly leading to retractions.

Plagiarism in any form is deemed unethical and unacceptable. It is assessed not solely on the basis of similarity reports generated by detection software, but through careful editorial evaluation of the extent, context, nature, and purpose of the overlap, as well as the adequacy of attribution. Where plagiarism is identified, the Handling Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, will determine the appropriate course of action based on the severity of the case.

Minor plagiarism may involve limited unattributed overlap, such as isolated sentences, short phrases, or minor paraphrasing issues, where the original sources are identifiable and the overlap does not affect the originality of the work. In such cases, authors may be asked to add proper citations, revise the text, or improve paraphrasing. These cases are typically treated as opportunities for correction and author guidance.
Moderate plagiarism may involve more extensive unattributed overlap, including larger passages, close paraphrasing of substantial sections, or repeated citation omissions that affect the clarity or originality of the manuscript. Depending on the circumstances, the manuscript may be returned for substantial revision or rejected. Authors are expected to make significant corrections and provide appropriate attribution before further consideration.
Substantial plagiarism involves extensive unattributed copying, systematic reproduction of previously published material, or appropriation of others’ work that significantly undermines the originality, integrity, or scholarly contribution of the manuscript. Manuscripts affected by substantial plagiarism are normally rejected. In severe or repeated cases, additional actions may be taken in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics, and the author’s institution or funding agency may be informed where appropriate.

The Editor assesses the level of plagiarism in each submission using plagiarism detection software (e.g., Turnitin or similar tools), to evaluate the originality of the work before proceeding with the review process. While the journal uses plagiarism detection software to assist in identifying potential overlap with existing sources, the final determination regarding the severity and nature of plagiarism rests with the assigned Editor. This decision takes into account not only the similarity percentage, but also the context, nature of overlap, and adequacy of attribution. Automated tools are valuable for initial screening, but editorial judgment ensures a fair, nuanced, and ethical evaluation of each case.

Reviewers are encouraged to report any suspected plagiarism or academic misconduct to the Editor, with all reports handled confidentially and followed by appropriate action after investigation. Readers and other stakeholders are also encouraged to report suspected plagiarism or academic misconduct to the editorial office. In cases of significant plagiarism, the article may be formally retracted or rejected, depending on its status. If plagiarism is identified post-publication, an investigation will be conducted, and upon confirmation, the author’s institution and funding agencies may be notified. Retracted articles will be clearly marked on each page of the PDF to indicate retraction due to a violation of publication ethics.

Ethical use of AI tools

Ensuring the ethical use of generative AI tools is essential for maintaining research integrity and credibility. Authors may use these technologies to enhance readability and language. However, the application of AI tools should always involve human oversight and control. Authors are responsible for thoroughly reviewing and editing AI-generated content, as it may sound authoritative yet be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased. It is crucial to refrain from attributing authorship to AI or AI-assisted technologies. These tools should not be listed as authors, co-authors, or cited as such.

Authors remain responsible for the final text and must ensure their work is original and adheres to ethical publishing standards. When utilizing generative AI tools, authors must transparently disclose their use in the article, similar to any other software employed. Proper citations and attributions are required to maintain high ethical standards in academic writing. In addition, authors must proactively address potential biases and ensure balanced perspectives in all AI-generated content.

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI-assisted technologies if such tools were used during the writing process. This disclosure should be included in the main article file, prior to the References section, under a new section titled "Statement on the Ethical Use of AI Tools". This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for grammar checks, spelling corrections, or reference management. If no AI tools were used, no such statement is necessary.

The Editorial Team will conduct a thorough review to verify the originality and authenticity of the submitted work. In the event of a significant breach of ethical standards concerning AI tools, the article may be rejected or retracted, depending on its status. In cases of serious or repeated breaches, additional actions may be taken in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics, which may include rejection, retraction, restrictions on future submissions, and notification of relevant institutions or funding bodies, where appropriate.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision resulted from a procedural error, factual misunderstanding, or ethical concern. Appeals must be submitted through the journal’s submission system or via the principal contact (info@setjournal.com) within one month of the final editorial decision. The Editor-in-Chief will acknowledge receipt of the appeal and conduct an initial review within two weeks.

The Editor-in-Chief may decide on the appeal directly or may appoint an ad-hoc Appeals Committee composed of at least three members of the Editorial Team who were not involved in the original editorial decision. The role of the Appeals Committee is to review the appeal and provide a reasoned recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who retains responsibility for the final decision. The committee will review the appeal and submit its recommendation within one month. The final decision will be communicated to the authors through the journal’s submission system or via email, depending on the authors’ preference. If an appeal is upheld, the relevant editorial process will be repeated in accordance with the journal’s policies.

Complaints related to publication ethics, research integrity, or editorial conduct may be submitted either before or after publication. All complaints are handled confidentially and in accordance with the journal’s Publication Ethics policy and COPE guidance. The Editor-in-Chief will acknowledge receipt of a complaint within two weeks and, where necessary, initiate appropriate corrective actions within a reasonable timeframe.

Preprint Policy

The Science, Engineering and Technology journal recognizes the value of preprints in promoting open access to research findings and enabling the rapid dissemination of scholarly work. Authors are permitted to submit manuscripts that have previously been made available as preprints on recognized preprint servers or platforms.

Posting a manuscript as a preprint is not considered prior publication and does not constitute plagiarism, provided that the original authorship and source are properly acknowledged. Authors may share their preprint on appropriate platforms at any time.

When submitting a manuscript that has previously been disseminated as a preprint, authors are required to disclose this information and provide a citation to the preprint in the cover letter and, where appropriate, within the manuscript. The citation should include the preprint DOI or URL.

The peer review process is conducted independently of the existence of a preprint and is not influenced by prior dissemination. However, editors and reviewers may consider relevant public comments or discussions associated with the preprint where appropriate.

Failure to disclose the existence of a preprint version may be considered a breach of publication ethics.

Upon acceptance for publication, authors are encouraged to update the preprint record by adding a link to the final published article via its Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Corrections and Retractions

Science, Engineering and Technology is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity, transparency, and accuracy in the scholarly record. While rigorous peer review and editorial oversight are applied to all submissions, the journal recognizes that errors may occasionally be identified after publication. This policy outlines the procedures for addressing corrections and, where necessary, retractions in order to maintain the integrity of published research. The journal therefore welcomes post-publication discussion and the reporting of errors as part of responsible scholarly communication.

Significant errors refer to inaccuracies or omissions that may compromise the validity, reliability, or interpretation of research findings. Such errors may include, but are not limited to, incorrect or incomplete data, flawed analyses, misinterpretation of results, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.

Reporting Significant (major) Errors: Authors, reviewers, editors, or readers who become aware of a potential significant error in a published article are encouraged to notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly. Reports should include a clear description of the issue, its potential impact on the research findings, and, where possible, supporting evidence or proposed corrections. The journal values input from the wider scientific community, and all concerns will be handled confidentially and in accordance with established ethical guidelines.

Assessment and Editorial Action: Upon receipt of a report, the Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the Handling Editor, will conduct a thorough assessment to determine the validity and significance of the reported issue. This process may involve consultation with the original authors, reviewers, and, where appropriate, independent experts.

If a significant error is confirmed, appropriate action will be taken based on its nature and severity:

Correction: If the error does not substantially undermine the overall integrity of the work, a correction notice (corrigendum or erratum) will be published. The original article will remain part of the scholarly record and will be clearly linked to the correction.
Retraction: If the error seriously compromises the validity of the findings, or if the article is found to involve serious research or publication misconduct, a retraction will be issued. Retractions are accompanied by a clear notice explaining the reasons for the action. Retracted articles are not removed from the journal’s website but are clearly marked as retracted, and relevant bibliographic databases are notified.

Transparency and Decision-Making: All corrections and retractions are displayed prominently on the article’s webpage to ensure transparency. The final decision regarding retraction rests with the Editor-in-Chief, following consultation with the Handling Editor or, where necessary, an ad hoc Ethics Committee appointed by the Editor-in-Chief and composed of at least three members of the Editorial Team.

Retraction Policy Note: The Editor-in-Chief follows the COPE's retraction guidelines in cases of retraction of published articles.

Withdrawal Policy

Withdrawal of a manuscript is discouraged and permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Authors wishing to withdraw a submission must submit a formal request via the Online Submission System or contact the Editor or Editor-in-Chief by email. The request must be submitted by the corresponding author and include a clear and valid justification.

A manuscript is considered officially withdrawn only after the authors receive a formal Withdrawal Confirmation Letter from the journal. Authors must not assume that a submission has been withdrawn until such formal confirmation has been issued.

Valid reasons for withdrawal may include:

Duplicate or simultaneous submission to another journal;
Major errors or unresolvable flaws in the data, methodology, or conclusions;
Serious ethical concerns identified by the authors;
Technical issues affecting the submission (e.g., corrupted files);
Early-stage withdrawal prior to the initiation of peer review;
Prolonged absence of editorial communication exceeding four months despite reasonable attempts by the authors to contact the editorial office;
Other cases deemed valid by the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Unjustified or unethical withdrawal requests may be considered a breach of Publication Ethics. In such cases, the journal may, where appropriate and depending on the severity of the case:

Impose temporary restrictions or an embargo on future submissions;
Notify the authors’ affiliated institutions or funding bodies;
Inform other journals or publishers in cases of serious and substantiated misconduct, where appropriate.

Withdrawal Penalty Policy:

No penalty is applied if the withdrawal request is submitted before the peer review process begins.
If peer review has started, withdrawal may be permitted; however, reviewer reports will not be disclosed to the authors.
If a manuscript has been accepted but not yet published, the withdrawal request will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief.
Published articles cannot be withdrawn. In such cases, corrections or retractions will be issued in accordance with the journal’s Corrections and Retractions Policy.
Where a withdrawal request involves ethical misconduct, appropriate measures may be taken in line with the journal’s Publication Ethics and COPE guidelines.

For all aspects not explicitly addressed in this Publication Ethics statement, the journal adheres to the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, as well as relevant COPE Guidance.

Ethical Standards for Special Issues

To maintain editorial integrity, transparency, and trust in the publication process, all Special Issues are required to adhere to the same ethical principles, editorial standards, and double-blind peer review procedures as regular issues of the Science, Engineering and Technology journal.

The Editor-in-Chief, or a member of the Editorial Team formally designated by the Editor-in-Chief, provides continuous oversight, guidance, and support to Guest Editors throughout the editorial workflow. This oversight ensures full compliance with the journal’s peer review policies, the proper identification and management of potential conflicts of interest, and the consistent application of ethical standards.

While Guest Editors may assist in coordinating the peer review process and provide editorial recommendations, final editorial decisions, as well as overall responsibility for ethical compliance, conflicts of interest, complaints, and appeals, remain with the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief.

For all additional procedures and guidance related to Special Issues, the journal follows the COPE best practice guidelines for guest-edited collections.

Publication Ethics Updates

The Science, Engineering and Technology journal is committed to continuous improvement and adherence to the highest standards of ethical publishing. Accordingly, the journal reserves the right to revise or update the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement as necessary. Any changes will be clearly documented and published on the journal’s website.

The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement is reviewed periodically and updated to reflect evolving best practices, changes in editorial policies, and developments in international publication ethics guidelines. The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with members of the Editorial Team, conducts periodic assessments to ensure continued alignment with current academic publishing standards and the highest levels of research integrity.

The journal remains fully dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and a strong culture of ethical conduct within the scholarly community.

Beginning with Volume 2, the journal formally introduced ethical policies regarding article withdrawal, integrating them into its Publication Ethics framework. From this volume onward, the Competing Interests Statement became a mandatory requirement for all submissions.

Beginning with Volume 3, the Ethical Use of AI Tools policy was formally incorporated into the journal’s Publication Ethics, establishing clear expectations for responsible AI usage in research and scholarly writing. In addition, the Data Availability Statement was expanded to include guidance on the disclosure of computer code and software. From this volume onward, the Data Availability Statement became mandatory for all articles involving specific datasets or materials, reflecting a transition from its earlier optional status.

More information:

Abstracting and indexing

Current Issue & Archive

Publication Ethics

Submission & Publication