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, Details on Required Statements (Competing Interests Statement, Data Availability Statement, Other Optional Statements), 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. The journal adheres to all COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. For all aspects not explicitly defined in this Publication Ethics statement, the journal follows the COPE guidance available at https://publicationethics.org/guidance

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 articlesand 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. Also, each reviewer can suggest additional 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 Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers as outlined by the COPE, 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 according to 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 Availabilty Statement: Authors are required to include a Data Availability Statement in their submission. 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.

Details on Required Statements

Competing Interests Statement – This is a mandatory component of the article. Authors must clearly declare any financial, personal, or professional conflicts of interest that could influence the research or its presentation. If no such conflicts exist, a statement such as “The authors declare no competing interests” must still be included.
Data Availability Statement – This statement is mandatory if the article involves specific data or materials. Authors must indicate whether the data are publicly available, available upon request, or subject to restrictions. In cases where no data were used, a statement such as “No data were used for the research described in the article” should be provided.
Other Optional Statements – Authors are encouraged to include additional declarations where applicable, such as: Funding Statement, Author Contribution Roles (using CRediT taxonomy), Statement on the Ethical Use of AI Tools, and any other relevant disclosures or acknowledgments.

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, their editorial or reviewing responsibilities. 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.

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 Editor-in-Chief to assign an alternative editor.

Examples of potential competing interests for editors 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 articless, 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 articles. These relationships could create biases that influence editorial decisions. For instance, if an editor is close friends with an author submitting an article, 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 article from competing entities.
Editorial Team Membership: Editors may also serve on the editorial teams 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.
Authorship: Any article authored by a member of the Editorial Team must undergo a peer review process that is conducted entirely independently of the involved editor and their affiliated research groups. Therefore, articles submitted by members of the Editorial Team, including the Editor-in-Chief, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Team Members, or Guest Editors, are subject to the same rigorous double-blind peer review process as all other submissions. Such submissions are assigned to another qualified editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors.

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.

Examples of potential competing interests for reviewers include:

Author Identity Disclosure: The journal operates on a double-blind peer review model, ensuring that reviewers are unaware of the identities of the article'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 article, 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.
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.
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 article from the same or other authors and formed opinions or judgments about the research that could affect their assessment of the current article.
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 article.

By accepting the responsibility to review an article, reviewers commit to carefully identifying and transparently disclosing any potential conflicts of interest. This ethical obligation is essential for preserving the integrity of the peer review process and reinforcing the credibility of the journal. Transparent disclosure promotes fairness, objectivity, and trust, ensuring that all evaluations are conducted without bias or undue influence.

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.

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 the Editor upon request. The Editor may share submitted data and materials with reviewers if deemed necessary for a thorough evaluation of the article, provided that such sharing does not violate ethical standards or other relevant journal guidelines.

It is crucial that articles 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 Availabilty Statement' in their work.

Availability of computer code and software:

Authors are required to provide, upon request from the Editor, any custom computer code or algorithm previously unreported that was utilized to generate the data presented in the article. The Editor may share submitted code or software with reviewers if deemed necessary for a thorough evaluation of the article, provided that such sharing does not violate ethical standards or other relevant journal guidelines.

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 article 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 Availability Statement'. 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 article.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are strongly encouraged 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 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 without adhering to ethical principles also undermines research integrity, as addressed in the Ethical Use of AI Tools section.
Redundant Publications: Publishing multiple articles that stem from the same research (often termed “salami slicing”) is discouraged, as editors may reject submissions that appear to fragment research findings artificially.
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 only on the basis of similarity percentages but also with careful consideration of the context, the nature of the overlap, and the adequacy of attribution. If confirmed in a submission, the handling Editor, in consultation with the Editor-in-Chief, will take appropriate action:

Minor Plagiarism (<15%): Authors may be asked to add citations or improve paraphrasing where small portions of text are insufficiently attributed. Such cases are generally treated as opportunities for correction and education.
Moderate Plagiarism (15%–30%): The manuscript may be returned for revision or, in more serious instances, rejected. This level typically involves larger sections of text or close paraphrasing without proper acknowledgment. Authors are expected to make substantial corrections before resubmission.
Substantial Plagiarism (>30%): Manuscripts with extensive unattributed overlap are usually rejected, and in severe or repeated cases, further sanctions may be applied, such as restrictions on future submissions. Where appropriate, the author’s institution or funding agency may be informed.

The Editor assesses the level of plagiarism in each submission using specialized detection software (Turnitin), 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 will 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 are required to disclose the use of generative AI-assisted technologies in 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. Additionally, the authors may face future submission bans, and their respective institutions and funding agencies 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 an article 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 article 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.

Preprints are not considered prior publication and do not constitute plagiarism if properly acknowledged. However, failure to declare a preprint version may be treated as a breach of ethical standards.

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. Therefore, the journal welcomes post-publication discussion and corrections as part of maintaining scholarly integrity.

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: Members of the Editorial Team and peer reviewers play a critical role in identifying errors during the peer review process. If any stakeholder (including authors, reviewers, editors, or readers) becomes aware of a potential fundamental error in a published article, they are strongly encouraged to notify the Editor-in-Chief promptly. This notification should include a clear explanation of the error, its implications for the research findings, and any proposed corrections. If warranted, an author correction may be published to address errors that affect the scientific integrity of the article, the publication record, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. We also welcome input from readers and the wider scientific community—any concerns should be submitted to the journal’s editorial office with appropriate supporting evidence.

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

1. Investigation: The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the handling editor, will conduct a thorough investigation to assess the validity and impact of the reported error. This process may involve consulting the original authors, reviewers, and, when necessary, independent experts in the relevant field.

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 issued, they will be clearly and prominently displayed on the article's webpage to maintain transparency. The journal appreciates the cooperation of authors, reviewers, readers, and the broader scientific community in promptly reporting and addressing potential errors. The final decision regarding a retraction is made by the Editor-in-Chief, following consultation with the handling Editor or an ad hoc Ethics Committee, composed of selected Editorial Team members appointed by the Editor-in-Chief based on the specific case.

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

Withdrawal Policy

Withdrawal of an article is discouraged and permitted only in exceptional cases. Authors who wish to withdraw their submission must send a formal request via the Online Submission System or email the Editor or Editor-in-Chief. The request must come from the corresponding author and include a valid justification. The article is considered officially withdrawn only after receiving a formal Withdrawal Confirmation Letter from the journal and authors must not assume their article is withdrawn until they have received this confirmation letter.

Valid reasons for withdrawal include:

Duplicate submission to the Science Engineering and Technology;
Major errors or unresolvable flaws in the data or conclusions;
Serious ethical concerns;
Technical issues (e.g., corrupted files);
Early-stage withdrawal (before review starts);
No update on review status after more than four months;
Other cases deemed valid by the Editor or Editor-in-Chief.

Unjustified withdrawal constitutes a breach of Publication Ethics. In such cases, the journal may:

Impose a 2 year embargo on future submissions by the authors;
Notify authors' institutions or funders;
Inform other journals and publishers of the ethical violation (if applicable);

Withdrawal Penalty Policy:

No penalty if the request is made before the review process begins.
If peer review has started, the article may be withdrawn, but reviewer feedback will not be shared.
If the article is accepted but unpublished, the Editor-in-Chief will evaluate the withdrawal request.
Published articles cannot be withdrawn; however, corrections or retractions may be issued when necessary.
If the reason for withdrawal violates ethical standards, penalties and notifications will be applied as noted above.

Ethical Standards for Special Issues

To maintain editorial integrity, transparency, and trust in the publication process, all special issues must adhere to the same rigorous ethical and peer-review standards as regular issues of the Science, Engineering and Technology journal.

The Editor-in-Chief, or a designated member of the Editorial Team appointed by the Editor-in-Chief, provides guidance and support to Guest Editors throughout the editorial workflow. These editors ensures compliance with the journal’s double-blind review policy, mitigates potential conflicts of interest, and reinforces the integrity and credibility of the publication process.

For all additional details and procedures, we follow COPE’s best practice guidelines for guest-edited collections to ensure ethical and transparent handling of special issues.

Publication Ethics Updates

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

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement are 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 an annual assessment to ensure that the journal remains aligned with current academic publishing standards and maintains the highest levels of research integrity.

We remain fully dedicated to promoting transparency, accountability, and a strong culture of ethical conduct within our scholarly community.

From Volume 2: The journal introduced ethical policies regarding Article Withdrawal formally integrating it into its Publication Ethics guidelines. Beginning with this volume, the Competing Interest Statement became a mandatory requirement for all submissions.

From Volume 3: The Ethical Use of AI Tools policy was officially incorporated into the journal’s Publication Ethics, establishing clear expectations for responsible AI usage in research and writing. The Data Availability Statement section was expanded to include guidance on disclosing the availability of computer code and software. Moreover, this statement is now mandatory for all articles using specific datasets or materials, reflecting a shift from its earlier optional nature.

For all aspects not explicitly defined in this Publication Ethics statement, the journal follows the COPE guidance available at https://publicationethics.org/guidance

More information:

Abstracting and indexing

Current Issue & Archive

Publication Ethics

Submission & Publication