Publication Ethics

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Science, Engineering and Technology journal adheres rigorously to the ethical principles established by the international scientific community. Our Editorial Team is dedicated to upholding these principles and strives to prevent any breaches thereof. Ethical standards in publication are paramount for ensuring the integrity and credibility of scientific research, fostering public trust in scientific discoveries, and ensuring due recognition of intellectual contributions. Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement includes the respective responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors, Competing Interests Statement, Plagiarism Policy, Changes to Authorship policy, Ethical use of AI tools, Preprint Policy, Policy for Fundamental Errors in Published Works, Withdrawal Policy, and Publication Ethics Updates.

We are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in all aspects of our publication process and encourage all stakeholders to uphold these principles for the betterment of scientific discourse and advancement.

Responsibilities of Editors, Reviewers, and Authors

Editors 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: Editors are responsible for deciding whether to send a manuscript for peer review, recommending revisions to authors, or making acceptance or rejection decisions based on reviews and revisions. These decisions are made in consultation with other editors and reviewers, following a double-blind peer review model. Editors evaluate articles solely on their intellectual content, disregarding factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Editor-in-Chief (or Deputy Editor-in-Chief) assigns submissions to a Section Editor (Editor) responsible for overseeing the editorial process and identifying suitable reviewers. All members of the Editorial Board have the potential to serve as Editors for individual submissions. When selecting an Editor for a submission, the Editor-in-Chief prioritizes board members with expertise in the relevant section or topic, while also considering factors such as potential conflicts of interest and the Editor's availability. 
  • Conflict of Interest: Editors should avoid any conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions regarding manuscripts. Editors who accept their role agree to abide by rules regarding conflicts of interest. This ensures that they are committed to upholding the integrity and impartiality of the editorial process. If an editor has a potential competing interest related to a submitted manuscript, they should recuse themselves from the review process and inform Editor-in-Chief to assign an alternative editor.
  • Fair and Impartial Review: Editors oversee the peer review process to ensure fairness, impartiality, and timeliness. Manuscripts are evaluated solely on academic merit, without consideration of authors' identities, affiliations, or backgrounds. If an editor cannot asses manuscript impartially or have any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest, they should not accept the invitation to serve as an editor for particular manuscript. Any potential conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and if discovered after review, the Editor-in-Chief should be promptly informed. Submissions by editorial board members are handled by the Editor-in-Chief or an alternative editor to maintain fairness and impartiality.
  • Peer Review: Members of the editorial board may contribute to the peer review process by serving as reviewers, offering feedback and recommendations regarding manuscript suitability for publication. However, individuals are assigned specific roles to prevent conflicts of interest; for instance, a person cannot simultaneously hold the positions of editor and reviewer for the same submission.
  • Coordination: Editors may coordinate with reviewers, authors, and other members of the editorial team to ensure a smooth review workflow. This involves managing the peer-review process, communicating with authors, and making sure that deadlines are met.
  • Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and associated materials, ensuring the peer review process remains confidential. Editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, editorial board, and the publisher, as appropriate. Unpublished materials disclosed in submitted articles must not be used for personal research without authors' explicit consent.
  • Plagiarism and Misconduct: Editors should actively work to prevent and address plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of research misconduct. They should take appropriate action if ethical breaches are detected during the review process or after publication.
  • Quality and Originality: Editors ensure the originality and scientific validity of published research, maintaining high-quality content and adhering to publishing standards.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Editors provide transparent guidelines to authors and reviewers, being accountable for their decisions and addressing concerns or disputes promptly.
  • Corrections and Retractions: Editors promptly address significant errors or ethical issues in published articles through corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern.
  • Ethical Guidelines: Editors enforce ethical guidelines for authors, reviewers, and stakeholders, including author guidelines, publication ethics, and peer review policies.
  • Advisory Role: Editorial board members provide expert guidance and attract submissions, promoting the journal within the academic or professional community.

Editorial Independence Statement: Science, Engineering and Technology journal upholds its commitment to maintaining editorial independence from its owners and sponsors. The journal is dedicated to adhering to the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical publishing practices. We are dedicated to providing a fair, rigorous, and transparent peer review process for all submissions, upholding the highest standards of academic excellence, and ensuring the impartiality and independence of our editorial decisions. Our commitment to editorial independence ensures that the content published in the journal is a product of scientific merit, free from undue influence, and represents a true reflection of the research community's contributions.

Note: We recommend that our editors adhere to the COPE (Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)

Reviewers' responsibilities:

Reviewers are integral to upholding the quality and integrity of scientific research within the Science, Engineering, and Technology journal. Their rigorous evaluation and feedback contribute significantly to the enhancement of research standards and publication quality. By adhering to ethical conduct, reviewers bolster the credibility and trustworthiness of the peer review and publishing process. As outlined in publication ethics guidelines, reviewers shoulder several key responsibilities including:

  • Expert Evaluation: Reviewers (referees) should provide an expert and unbiased evaluation of the submitted manuscript. 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. Referees 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. Referees are welcome to provide comments to help the author(s) focus on the highlighted issues they have raised in the review process. Also, each reviewer can suggest additional reviewers. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript 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 manuscript. 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 manuscripts and associated materials as confidential documents. They should not share, discuss, or use the information contained in the manuscript 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 manuscript, 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 editor's attention.
  • Ethical Guidelines: Reviewers should be familiar with and enforce ethical guidelines for reviewers. They should be aware of the journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data and materials availability, and materials sharing. Reviewers should be vigilant in identifying any potential ethical issues, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or conflicts of interest, and bring such concerns to the attention of the editor. Referees should not use information obtained during the peer review process for their own or any other person’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.

Overall, adherence to these responsibilities ensures the credibility and trustworthiness of the peer review system and scholarly publishing process.

Authors responsibilities:

Authors have a significant role in upholding publication ethics and ensuring the integrity of scientific research published in Science, Engineering and Technology journal. Publication ethics guidelines help maintain the trust of readers and the broader scientific community in the research.The main authors' responsibilities include:

  • Originality and Authenticity: Authors should ensure that their research work is original and authentic. They should not submit the same manuscript to multiple journals or conferences simultaneously, and they should not engage in any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification of research findings. The editor will not consider any article or part of a article that has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere (except preprints – see Preprint Policy) in any language. Distribution on the internet and conference proceedings may be considered before publication and may compromise the originality of the article. Additionally, when utilizing generative AI tools, authors must uphold research integrity and credibility by adhering to policies for the Ethical Use of AI Tools.
  • 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 manuscript 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 conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of the research, methodology, project administration, supervision, validation, visualization, technical support, writing, review and editing, software development, etc. 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 manuscript and take collective responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the reported research. They should review and approve the final version of the manuscript before submission. 3. Corresponding Author: Each manuscript should have a corresponding author who will serve as the primary point of contact with the journal 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 manuscript 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 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 and images is strictly prohibited.
  • Data and Materials Accessibility: Authors should be prepared to provide the underlying data and research materials to other researchers and reviewers if requested, in line with the journal's policies. Authors are required to include 'Data and Materials Accessibility:' in their work.
  • Transparency: Authors should provide sufficient detail and information in the manuscript to allow others to verify the findings.
  • Peer Review and Corrections: Authors should respond to reviewers' comments and suggestions professionally and constructively. If errors or inaccuracies are discovered after publication, authors should promptly inform the editorial office and work towards issuing corrections or retractions when necessary.
  • Ethical Guidelines: Authors should be familiar with and enforce ethical guidelines for authors. They should be aware of the journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability and materials sharing. The authors should understand the Copyright Policy and confirm that all the authors have approved 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 Interest Statement' in their work.

Details on Statement Requirements

  • Competing Interest Statement - mandatory component in the article.
  • Data and Materials Availability - mandatory statement if specific data or materials were utilized in the article.
  • Other Statements - Authors are encouraged to provide the following information (if applicable): Funding Statement, Author Contribution Roles, Declaration of Generative AI-assisted Tools, and any other pertinent details.

The above-mentioned statements are further elaborated upon in the Publication Ethics guidelines

Competing Interests

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.

Editors should avoid any conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions regarding acceptance of manuscripts. 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 manuscript, they should recuse themselves from the review process and inform Editor-in-Chief to assign an alternative editor. Competing interests for editors may include:

  • Financial Competing Interests: Editors may have financial relationships with companies, organizations, or individuals that could be affected by the publication of specific research articles. For instance, they may have investments in companies producing products related to the research under consideration.
  • Collaborative Research: If editors have collaborated with authors of submitted manuscripts, they might face conflicts of interest affecting their ability to make unbiased decisions.
  • Personal Connections: Editors might have personal relationships with authors, reviewers, or individuals associated with the submitted manuscripts. These relationships could create biases that influence editorial decisions. For instance, if an editor is close friends with an author submitting a manuscript, they may be inclined to give favorable treatment to that submission.
  • Professional and Academic Rivalries: Editors may have academic rivalries with researchers, institutions, or scientific groups, which could potentially affect their impartiality in handling manuscripts from competing entities.
  • Editorial Board Membership: Editors may also serve on the editorial boards of other journals, potentially leading to conflicts of interest if those journals are in direct competition or have overlapping scopes.
  • Advocacy Positions: Editors with strong advocacy positions on specific topics or issues may be inclined to influence their editorial decisions regarding research related to those topics.
  • Academic Prestige and Publishing Pressure: Editors may be motivated to accept articles that enhance the prestige of the journal or their own academic reputation, even if those articles are not necessarily the highest quality or most relevant to the field.
  • Preconceived Beliefs: Editors may have personal beliefs or preconceived notions about certain research topics that could impact their objectivity.

Note: Any manuscript authored by an editorial board member must undergo peer review conducted independently of the relevant member and their affiliated research groups. A clear statement reflecting this protocol should accompany any published article authored by an editorial board member. Therefore, we suggest editors/authors to incorporate the statement titled 'Transparent Statement' (independent review for editorial board member manuscripts) into the article.

Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest that could compromise their impartiality in evaluating a manuscript. If a reviewer identifies a competing interest, they should either decline the review or promptly inform the editor, who may then assign the manuscript 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.

The Science, Engineering, and Technology journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. Editors undertake all reasonable measures to safeguard the anonymity of both reviewers and authors, ensuring that the peer review process remains fair, unbiased, and convenient. However, if a reviewer recognizes the name of an author in any capacity, it is imperative to immediately notify the Editor.

Examples of potential competing interests for reviewers include:

  • Competing Research: If reviewers are working on similar research or have published on similar topics, they may have a competing interest in promoting their own work over that of the authors.
  • Past Review Decisions: Reviewers might have previously reviewed similar manuscript from the same or other authors and formed opinions or judgments about the research that could affect their assessment of the current manuscript.
  • Preconceived Notions: Reviewers may have preconceived notions about the topic or research area that could impact their ability to provide an unbiased evaluation.
  • Intellectual Bias: Reviewers may have strong beliefs or adhere to a particular theoretical framework that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Time Constraints: Reviewers with time constraints or other pressures may be tempted to provide a hurried or less thorough review, leading to potential biases in their recommendations.
  • Author Identity Disclosure: The journal operates on a double-blind peer review model, ensuring that reviewers are unaware of the identities of the manuscript's authors. In the event of accidental discovery, reviewers are required to promptly inform the Editor and abstain from further participation in the review process. This is particularly relevant in instances where the reviewer realizes they have certain connections with the authors of the manuscript, such as personal or professional relationships, academic rivalries, and so forth. Such connections have the potential to introduce biases, whether in favor of or against the authors' work.

By accepting the responsibility to review a manuscript, reviewers commit to vigilantly identifying and transparently disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. This commitment is crucial for upholding the integrity of the review process and ensuring the credibility of the journal. Transparent disclosure ensures that reviews are conducted with fairness, objectivity, and reliability.

Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest upon submission. If no conflicts exist, this should also be explicitly stated in the manuscript. 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. Examples of potential competing interests for authors include:

  • Financial Competing Interests: Authors may have financial relationships or interests that could be perceived as influencing their research. For instance, they might receive funding from companies or organizations that have a vested interest in the study's outcomes.
  • Previous Publications: If the research contradicts or challenges the authors' previously published work, they might have a competing interest in downplaying the significance of the new findings.
  • Publication Pressure: Authors may face pressure to publish their research, especially in high-impact journals, which could lead to potential bias in reporting or analyzing the data.
  • Academic Promotion or Recognition: Authors seeking academic promotion, tenure, or recognition may have competing interests in producing research with positive or impressive outcomes.
  • Employment or Consultancy: If the research is directly related to the authors' employment or consultancy work, there could be a competing interest in presenting results favorably to benefit their employer or client.
  • Ownership and Patents: Authors who hold patents or have ownership stakes in products or technologies related to the research might have competing interests in promoting their intellectual property.
  • Academic Rivalries: Competing interests can arise from academic rivalries, where authors might be biased against the work of researchers from competing institutions or with opposing views.
  • Intellectual Bias: Authors who have strong beliefs or adhere to specific theoretical frameworks might be influenced to interpret data in a way that aligns with their preconceived notions.

Data and Materials Availability 

Authors should anticipate the possibility of providing underlying data and research materials to reviewers upon request. It is crucial that manuscripts incorporate a clear statement regarding the availability of the data supporting the research to other researchers. Authors are strongly encouraged to ensure accessibility of the data utilized in the research and to furnish a comprehensive statement regarding its availability. Moreover, authors may outline any specific conditions under which the data can be accessed. Consequently, it is imperative for authors to include a 'Data and Materials Accessibility' in their work.

Availability of computer code and software

Authors are required to provide, upon request from editors and reviewers, any custom computer code or algorithm previously unreported that was utilized to generate the data presented in the manuscript. We strongly recommend that the software application or tool be made readily accessible to other scientists for non-commercial purposes without restrictions, or that the conditions for access be clearly specified. If the software or code cannot be made freely available, then the manuscript should distinctly focus on elucidating the development of the underlying method without detailed discussion of the tool itself.

A statement outlining the procedure for accessing the software or custom code must be included in the 'Data and Materials Availability Statement' within the Declaration section. Furthermore, clear license information for the software or method should be provided. This section should also incorporate a link to the most recent version of the software or code, such as GitHub, Sourceforge, Code Ocean, etc. Any code assigned a DOI must be formally cited and listed in the References section of the manuscript.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are urged to carefully consider the list and order of authors before submitting their manuscript. The final list of authors must be provided upon original submission. Any additions, deletions, or rearrangements to the authorship list should be made before the manuscript's acceptance and must be approved by the Editor. To request such changes, the corresponding author must provide a justification for the alteration and written confirmation (via email) from all authors endorsing the changes. In cases involving the addition or removal of authors, consent from the individual being added or removed is required. The Editor will only consider additions, deletions, or rearrangements after manuscript acceptance under exceptional circumstances. During the Editor's review process, publication of the manuscript will be halted. If the manuscript has already been published online, any approved changes will be issued as a corrigendum.

Plagiarism Policy

Authors submitting to Science, Engineering and Technology journal confirm that their article represents an original research contribution with all references properly cited. Any material sourced from external sources must be accurately cited and attributed, including text, figures, tables, data, or any other content. Failing to acknowledge the ideas and contributions of other researchers, or reusing one's own previously published work without proper citation, is considered unethical and misleading. Therefore, authors are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, which includes adhering to the following rules:

  • Citations and ReferencesProper acknowledgment of the original authors and publications is paramount. Authors are obligated to furnish accurate and comprehensive citations for all sources utilized in their research. Any borrowed material, whether in the form of direct quotations or paraphrased text, must be diligently cited and distinguished by quotation marks or indentation.
  • Proper Use of Figures and TablesAuthors are required to obtain permission from the original copyright holder for the inclusion of any figures, tables, images, or other copyrighted content in their manuscripts. Proper credit must be attributed to the original source, and details regarding permission should be provided at the time of submission.
  • Ethical use of AI tools: The utilization of AI tools must adhere to the ethical guidelines delineated in a dedicated section on the Ethical Use of AI Tools.

Authors are especially suggested to avoid the following practices:

  • Data fabrication and falsification.Data fabrication means the researcher did not actually do the study, but faked the data. Data falsification means the researcher did the experiment, but then changed some of the data.
  • Inappropriate citation and acknowledgment: Failure to provide proper citation for material obtained from external sources constitutes a significant breach of ethical standards. Also, using generative AI tools without adhering to ethical principles undermines research integrity and credibility, as outlined in a dedicated section on the Ethical Use of AI Tools.
  • Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications). Publishing numerous closely related articles stemming from the same experiment is discouraged. Editors are likely to reject a weak article that they suspect is a result of salami slicing.
  • Improper author contribution or attribution. All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the article and approved all its claims. It is essential to acknowledge all individuals who contributed significantly to the study and refrain from conferring authorship on those who did not actively participate in the research process. For transparency, we encourage corresponding authors to provide co-author contributions to the manuscript using the relevant CRediT
  • Substantial portions of self-plagiarism: Authors should avoid self-plagiarism, which involves recycling substantial portions of their previously published work without proper citation. If authors intend to reuse content from their earlier publications, they must obtain consent from the copyright holder and provide appropriate attribution.
  • Multiple submissions: Submitting the same article to multiple journals simultaneously is unethical and undermines the integrity of the publication process, causing undue burden on editors and peer reviewers and potentially tarnishing the reputation of authors and journals if published in more than one venue, necessitating retractions.

It is imperative to emphasize that all forms of plagiarism, irrespective of their severity, are deemed unethical and intolerable in academic and scientific publishing. If plagiarism or academic misconduct is confirmed in a submitted manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with other members of the editorial board, will determine appropriate actions, which may include, but are not limited to:

  • Minor Plagiarism: The author(s) will be contacted to provide proper citations and make the necessary corrections. The revised manuscript will undergo further evaluation. Minor Plagiarism involves the use of small portions of copied content from another source without proper citation or attribution. This typically includes short phrases, sentences, or paragraphs and may involve poor paraphrasing or inadequate citation of sources.
  • Moderate Plagiarism: The manuscript will be rejected or sent back to the author for content revision. Moderate Plagiarism involves a more substantial amount of copied content from another source without proper citation or attribution. It may include larger sections of text, multiple sentences, or paragraphs. This level of plagiarism could involve significant paraphrasing that closely follows the original wording without proper acknowledgment.
  • Substantial Plagiarism: The manuscript will be rejected, and the author(s) may be banned from submitting to our journal in the future. Additionally, the authors' institution(s) and funding agency (if any) may be notified, especially in the case of repeat offenses. Substantial plagiarism involves extensive and significant copying of content from another source without proper citation or attribution. This may include entire sections, chapters, or large portions of the work and could involve the verbatim reproduction of the original content without appropriate acknowledgment.

It is important to note that all forms of plagiarism, regardless of the level, are considered unethical and unacceptable in academic and scientific publishing. Authors are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, provide proper attribution for all sources used, and ensure that their work is original and properly cited before submission for publication.

The journal utilizes Turnitin software to address any potential plagiarism. The editorial team will conduct a thorough review to ensure the originality and authenticity of the submitted work. Also, readers, reviewers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to report any suspicions of plagiarism or academic misconduct to the editorial office. Such reports will be handled confidentially, and subsequent actions will be initiated following an investigation.

In case of a significant plagiarism breach, the article is subject to formal rejection or retraction, depending on its current status (under review or published). If plagiarism is identified after publication, the editorial office will initiate an immediate investigation. Once plagiarism is substantiated, the author's institution and funding agencies will be notified. Furthermore, the PDF version of the article will be clearly marked on each page to indicate retraction due to a violation of Publication Ethics.

Ethical use of AI tools

Ensuring the ethical use of generative AI tools is imperative for upholding research integrity and credibility. Authors can use these technologies to improve readability and language. The application of AI tools should incorporate human oversight and control. Authors must thoroughly review and edit the outcomes, considering that AI-generated content may sound authoritative but could be inaccurate, incomplete, or biased. It's crucial to refrain from attributing authorship to AI or AI-assisted technologies, neither listing them as authors or co-authors, nor citing them as such.

Authors are responsible for the final text and should ensure their work is original and adheres to ethical publishing standards. When employing generative AI tools, it is essential to transparently disclose their utilization in manuscript, akin to any other software. Authors should add the proper citations and attributions to meet the high ethical standards required in academic writing. Consequently, authors must provide proper citations and attributions to uphold the stringent ethical standards expected in academic writing. Furthermore, it is essential to adhere to ethical writing best practices by proactively addressing potential biases and ensuring balanced perspectives in all AI-generated content.

Authors are required to disclose the utilization of generative AI-assisted technologies in the writing process when employing these tools. This disclosure should be included within the main manuscript file, preceding the References section. This statement should be presented under a new section titled 'Declaration of Generative AI-assisted Tools'. This declaration does not apply to the use of basic tools for checking grammar, spelling, references etc. If there is nothing to disclose, there is no need to add a statement.

The editorial team will conduct a thorough review to verify the originality and authenticity of the submitted work. Should a significant breach of ethical standards in the utilization of AI tools be detected, the article may be formally rejected or retracted, depending on its status, and the author(s) may face potential future submission bans to our journal. Additionally, the respective institution(s) of the author(s) and any associated funding agency will be promptly notified.

Preprint Policy

Science, Engineering and Technology journal recognize the value of preprints in promoting open access to research findings and facilitating rapid dissemination of new information. Researchers are allowed to submit articles that have been previously posted as preprints. By endorsing preprints, we aim to foster scientific progress by facilitating the transparent sharing of research findings while upholding rigorous peer review standards. Therefore, authors can share their preprint anywhere at any time and posting a preprint is not generally considered plagiarism, as long as the original authorship and source of the preprint are properly credited.

When submitting a manuscript previously disseminated as a preprint, authors are required to include a citation to the preprint in the cover letter. This citation should include the preprint's DOI or URL, supplemented by any pertinent additional information. The peer review process will evaluate the manuscript independently, with the existence of a preprint having no bearing on the review procedure. However, reviewers and editors may consider feedback and discussions that have taken place on the preprint.

Upon acceptance for publication, we encourage authors to establish a link from the preprint to their formal publication via its Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Policy for Fundamental Errors in Published Works

Science, Engineering and Technology journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity and accuracy in the articles we publish. We recognize that despite rigorous peer review and editorial oversight, errors can occasionally occur in published works. This policy outlines the procedures for addressing and rectifying fundamental errors in articles published in our journal.

Fundamental errors are significant inaccuracies or omissions in published articles that may compromise the validity, reliability, or interpretation of the research findings. These errors can include but are not limited to incorrect data, flawed analyses, misinterpretation of results, or undisclosed conflicts of interest.  

Reporting Fundamental Errors: The editorial board and peer reviewers play a crucial role in identifying errors during the peer review process. If the editorial board or reviewers become aware of any potential errors in a published article, they should promptly inform the journal's editorial office. Also, if authors discover any fundamental errors in their published article, they are obliged to promptly notify the journal's editorial office. The notification should include a detailed explanation of the error, its impact on the research, and any necessary corrections. An Author correction may be published to correct an important error(s) that affects the scientific integrity of the published article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal.  Also, we encourage readers and the wider scientific community to bring potential fundamental errors in published articles to our attention. Readers can contact the journal's editorial office with their concerns and provide relevant evidence to support their claim.

Upon receiving a notification of a potential fundamental error, the following steps will be taken: investigation and corrections and/or retractions.

1. Investigation: The editorial office will conduct a thorough investigation to assess the validity of the reported error. This may involve consulting the original authors, reviewers, and other experts in the field as necessary.

2. Corrections and/or Retractions: If a fundamental error is verified, appropriate actions will be taken based on the severity and impact of the error: a) Correction - For minor errors that do not significantly affect the research's overall integrity, a correction notice will be issued, providing clarification or rectifying the mistake in the published article. The original article will be updated to include the correction notice. b) Retraction - For errors that seriously undermine the validity of the research or if the article is found to be a result of research misconduct, a retraction notice will be issued. The article will be officially retracted, and a clear explanation for the retraction will be provided. Therefore, an article may be retracted when the integrity of the published work is substantially undermined owing to errors in the conduct, analysis and/or reporting of the study. Violation of publication or research ethics may also result in a study’s retraction. When articles are retracted they are not removed from the website, instead they are retained with a clear notice of retraction and bibliographic databases are notified.

Transparency and Communication: When corrections or retractions are made, they will be prominently displayed on the journal's website and linked to the original article. We appreciate the cooperation of authors, reviewers, readers, and the scientific community in promptly reporting and resolving any potential errors. The editorial board will use COPE's retraction guidelines in cases of retraction of published articles. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on retracting the paper after consulting with the editorial board or the Ethics Committee, which is composed of board members chosen by the Editor-in-Chief for each specific case.

Withdrawal Policy

Withdrawing a manuscript during the peer review process is uncommon but may be necessary under certain circumstances. Authors wishing to withdraw their submitted manuscript from the review process should formally notify the Editorial Office. The withdrawal request must be submitted by the corresponding author via email to Upon receipt of a valid withdrawal request, the Editorial Office will acknowledge the request, and the manuscript will be withdrawn from the review process. Authors will receive confirmation of the withdrawal and must not assume their article is withdrawn until they have received a Formal Withdrawal Confirmation Letter from the journal.

It is important to note that withdrawal may be considered unethical and is discouraged except in exceptional circumstances. Authors are encouraged to engage with the Editorial Office to address any concerns or issues before requesting withdrawal. Withdrawal requests will be considered valid under the following circumstances: a) Duplicate submission of the manuscript within the Science, Engineering and Technology journal. b) Identification of major errors or inaccuracies in the data or conclusions of the manuscript that cannot be rectified within a reasonable timeframe. c) Ethical concerns raised that cannot be resolved in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics. d) Technical issues, such as submission errors or file corruption, rendering the manuscript unsuitable for peer review. e) Withdrawal in the initial phase after submission, i.e., before the manuscript is sent to reviewers for review. f) If there is no updated review progress information three months after initial submission. g) Other cases deemed justified by the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

If a withdrawal request is found to be invalid, such as if the manuscript is simultaneously under review by another journal or conference, this constitutes a violation of Publication Ethics. In such cases, the editorial board will take appropriate measures, such as imposing an embargo on the authors from publication in the Science, Engineering, and Technology journal and informing other publishers about the violation of Publication Ethics and scientific norms (i.e., poor scientific practice bordering on scientific misconduct).

Withdrawal Penalties: a) No penalties will be imposed for a valid withdrawal request. b) If the manuscript has undergone peer review but the process is incomplete, the withdrawal will proceed without providing reviewer comments to the authors. c) If the manuscript has been accepted for publication, the withdrawal request will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and the decision will be made at his discretion. d) Once the manuscript has been published, withdrawal is not permitted, but errata or corrections may be published as needed. e) If the reason for the article's withdrawal is found to be invalid, the authors will be embargoed from publication in the Science, Engineering, and Technology journal for a period of 2-3 years and other publishers will be informed about the violation of Publication Ethics and scientific misconduct.

Publication Ethics Updates

Science, Engineering and Technology journal is committed to continuous improvement and adherence to the highest standards of ethical publishing. Therefore, we reserve the right to amend or modify Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement as necessary. Any changes to the policy will be posted on the journal's website. As such, this Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement undergoes periodic review and updates to reflect evolving best practices, changes in the journal's policies, or developments in publication ethics guidelines. The editorial board and journal management conduct an annual review to ensure alignment with the most current standards of academic publishing and to uphold the highest levels of research integrity.

We remain steadfast in our dedication to transparency and accountability, fostering a culture of ethical conduct within our scholarly community.

Evolution of Publication Ethics:

  • From Vol. 2: A policy regarding Changes to Authorship and Withdrawal was introduced as part of our Publication Ethics guidelines. Additionally, the Competing Interest Statement transitioned from being optional to mandatory starting from this release. Transparent Statement (independent review for editorial board member manuscripts) should be incorporated into the article. 

  • From Vol. 3: We have incorporated a policy addressing the Ethical Utilization of AI Tools into our Publication Ethics guidelines. Furthermore, in the section 'Data and Materials Availability Statement', an explanation regarding the availability of computer code and software has been included. Moreover, if specific data or materials were utilized in the article, this statement is now a mandatory component, contrasting with its previous optional status. The Transparent Statement (independent review for editorial board member manuscripts) for published article co-authored by a editorial board member transitioned from being optional to mandatory starting from this release.

More information:

About the Journal

Journal Insights

Author Guidelines

Privacy Statement

Per Review Process

Editorial Team

Abstracting and indexing

Current Issue & Archive