Publication Ethics


Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Science, Engineering and Technology journal follows ethical norms accepted by the international scientific community. Editorial Team makes all efforts to prevent any infringements of these norms. Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their ideas. Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement includes the respective responsibilities of editors, reviewers, and authors. Also, our Publication Ethics includes Competing Interests, Plagiarism Policy, Policy for Fundamental Errors in Published Works, Withdrawal Policy, and Statement Updates.


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. We recommend our editors to use COPE (Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors). The key editor's responsibilities include:

  • Publication decisions. Editors may make decisions on whether a manuscript should be sent out for peer review, recommend revisions to authors, or make decisions on acceptance or rejection based on reviews and revisions. The editor confer with other editors and reviewers in making this decision. The journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. The editor at any time evaluate articles for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Fair and Impartial Review: Editors are responsible for overseeing the peer review process to ensure that it is conducted in a fair, unbiased, and timely manner. Manuscripts should be evaluated based on their academic merit, regardless of the authors' identities, affiliations, or backgrounds. The editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. If an editor cannot judge an manuscript impartially, they should not accept the invitation to evaluate it. If they have any professional, personal, or financial affiliations that may be perceived as a conflict of interest in reviewing the manuscript, they should not accept the invitation to review. If this conflict of interest is uncovered after reviewing the article, they should immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief. Submissions made to a journal by the Editor will be handled by an alternative Editor to ensure the process remains fair and unbiased.
  • 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.
  • Peer Review: Editorial board members may be involved in the peer-review process and serve as a reviewer. They might review manuscripts, provide feedback, and make recommendations to other editor regarding the suitability of a manuscript for publication.
  • Confidentiality: Editors must maintain the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts and associated materials. They should ensure that the peer review process is conducted with strict confidentiality and that information about the manuscript is not disclosed to unauthorized individuals. The submitted manuscript is privileged communication and must be treated as a confidential document. 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 a submitted article must not be used in an editor's research or shared with anyone without the author's express written consent. Editors will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted article for their own research purposes without the author’s explicit written consent.
  • Plagiarism and Misconduct: Editors should actively work to prevent and address plagiarism, data fabrication, and other forms of research misconduct. They must take appropriate action if ethical breaches are detected during the review process or after publication.
  • Quality and Originality: Editors are responsible for ensuring the originality and scientific validity of the research published in the journal. They should strive to maintain high-quality content and adhere to established publishing standards.
  • Transparency and Accountability: Editors should be transparent about the peer review and publication processes and provide clear guidelines to authors and reviewers. They should be accountable for the decisions made and be willing to address any concerns or disputes that may arise.
  • Corrections and Retractions: Editors should promptly consider and initiate corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern when significant errors or ethical issues are identified in published articles.
  • Ethical Guidelines: Editors should be familiar with and enforce ethical guidelines for authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders involved in the publishing process. These guidelines include author guidelnies, publication ethics, peer-review policy, and other ethical considerations. Editors should be aware of the journal policies regarding conflict of interest, data availability, and materials sharing.
  • Advisory Role: Editorial board members typically serve in an advisory capacity. They may be experts in the field related to the publication and are invited to join the editorial board to provide guidance and expertise. Also, they may also help attract submissions and promote the journal within the academic or professional community.
  • Conflict of Interest: Editors should avoid any conflicts of interest that could influence their decisions regarding manuscripts. 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.

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 Science, Engineering and Technology journal is a product of scientific merit, free from undue influence, and represents a true reflection of the research community's contributions.

Reviewers' responsibilities:

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scientific research published in Science, Engineering and Technology journal. Reviewers contribute to the rigorous evaluation and improvement of scientific research and publications. Their commitment to ethical conduct enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the peer review system and the scholarly publishing process as a whole. According to publication ethics guidelines, reviewers' responsibilities include:

  • Expert Evaluation: Reviewers should provide an expert and unbiased evaluation of the submitted manuscript. They should assess the research's originality, methodology, significance, and validity, as well as its adherence to ethical guidelines. If there is an aspect of an manuscript that a reviewer feels they are not qualified to evaluate, they should inform the Editor. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in an article or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process. If a reviewer feels unqualified to assess the manuscript or believes they cannot provide an impartial review, they should decline the review request
  • 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 a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the Editor as soon as possible.
  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide constructive, objective, and clear feedback to authors, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Their comments should help authors improve the quality of their research and manuscript. Reviews should respect the intellectual independence of the author. The reviewer should avoid personal comments. If something is unclear due to the language issues please address this issue.
  • Citation and Attribution: Reviewers should ensure that authors appropriately cite and attribute the work of others. If they identify relevant published work that has not been cited, they should 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 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.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their impartiality in reviewing a particular manuscript. If a reviewer has a competing interest, they should decline the review or inform the editor, who may assign the manuscript to an alternative reviewer.

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, reviewers, and the broader scientific community in the research published in journals. Authors' responsibilities in scientific journals 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 simultaneously, and they should not engage in any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification of research findings. Science, Engineering and Technology journal will not consider any article or part of a article that has been published or is under consideration for publication elsewhere in any language. Distribution on the internet and conference proceedings may be considered before publication and may compromise the originality of the article. When using generative AI tools, it is critical to maintain research integrity and credibility by checking policy 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. The authorship of a scientific paper 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. 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. 8. Authorship Disputes: In the case of authorship disputes or disagreements, the journal will follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (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.
  • Data Integrity: Authors should accurately and transparently report their research data. Manipulation or misrepresentation of data and images is strictly prohibited.
  • 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 Availability: 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.
  • Transparency: Authors should provide sufficient detail and information in the manuscript to allow others to verify the findings.
  • Peer Review and Corrections: Authors should cooperate with the peer review process and respond to reviewers' comments and suggestions professionally and constructively. If errors or inaccuracies are discovered after publication, authors should promptly inform the journal editor 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.

Competing Interests

It is important for all parties involved in the peer review and 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 manuscripts. 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. Some examples of competing interests for editors include:

  • Financial Interests: Editors may have financial relationships with companies, organizations, or individuals that could be affected by the publication of specific research articles. For example, they may have investments in companies that produce products related to the research being considered for publication.
  • Personal Relationships: Editors might have personal relationships with authors, reviewers, or individuals associated with the submitted manuscripts. These relationships could create biases that influence editorial decisions.
  • 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.
  • Research Collaborations: If editors have collaborated with authors of submitted manuscripts, they may face conflicts of interest that impact their ability to make unbiased decisions.
  • Editorial Board Membership: Editors could have affiliations with other journals, institutions, or organizations that may have their own interests or biases.
  • Advocacy Positions: If editors hold strong advocacy positions on specific topics or issues, it may influence their editorial decisions regarding research related to those topics.
  • Publishing Pressure: Editors may face pressure to publish certain types of research to boost journal metrics or promote the interests of their journal.
  • Preconceived Beliefs: Editors may have personal beliefs or preconceived notions about certain research topics that could impact their objectivity.
  • Contractual Obligations: Editors working for publishing companies or organizations may have contractual obligations that could influence their decision-making process.

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflicts of interest that may compromise their impartiality in reviewing a particular manuscript. If a reviewer has a competing interest, they should decline the review or inform the editor, who may assign the manuscript to an alternative reviewer. Therefore, reviewers should not agree to review any articles in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions.  Science, Engineering and Technology journal operates under a double-blind peer review model. Editors will take all reasonable steps to ensure that reviewers and authors identities are protected and that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and convenient. However, if the reviewer recognizes the author's name in any way, it is necessary to inform the Editor immediately. Some examples of competing interests for reviewers include:

  • Personal Relationships: Reviewers may have personal relationships with the authors of the manuscript under review, such as being colleagues, collaborators, or former mentors or mentees. These relationships can create biases in favor of or against the authors' work.
  • Academic Rivalries: Reviewers may have academic rivalries with the authors or their affiliated institutions, leading to potential biases in their assessment of the manuscript.
  • 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.
  • Financial Interests: Reviewers may have financial ties to companies or organizations related to the research being reviewed. For example, they may be employed by a company that produces products related to the study.
  • Intellectual Bias: Reviewers may have strong beliefs or adhere to a particular theoretical framework that could influence their evaluation of the manuscript.
  • Recent Collaborations: Reviewers who have recently collaborated with the authors may face conflicts if there are unresolved disputes or if the collaboration has significantly influenced the work being reviewed.
  • Past Review Decisions: Reviewers might have previously reviewed another manuscript from the same authors and formed opinions or judgments about their 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.
  • 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.

Authors have to disclose any potential sources of conflict of interest. Any interest or relationship, financial or otherwise that might be perceived as influencing an author's objectivity is considered a potential source of conflict of interest. These must be disclosed when directly relevant or directly related to the work that the authors describe in their article. The existence of a conflict of interest does not preclude publication. If the authors have no conflict of interest to declare, they must also state this at submission. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to review this policy with all authors and collectively to disclose with the submission all pertinent commercial and other relationships. Some examples of competing interests for editors include:

  • Financial Conflicts: 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.
  • 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.
  • Personal Relationships: Authors may have personal relationships with individuals or entities connected to the research, and this could influence their decision-making or reporting.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Political or Ideological Beliefs: Authors with strong political or ideological beliefs might have competing interests that influence their research design or conclusions.
  • Academic Promotion or Recognition: Authors seeking academic promotion, tenure, or recognition may have competing interests in producing research with positive or impressive outcomes.

Plagiarism Policy

Authors submitting to Science, Engineering and Technology journal accept the terms of Publication Ethics and confirm that the article is an original research contribution with the references properly cited in the article. Therefore, any content taken from other sources must be properly cited and attributed, including text, figures, tables, or data. Taking the ideas and work of other scientists without giving them credit is unfair and dishonest. Copying even one sentence from someone else’s article, or even one of your own that has been previously published, without proper citation, is considered plagiarism. Therefore, the authors should ensure that they have submitted original work. If the authors have used the work of others, they need to provide the appropriate citation. 

  • Citations and References: Authors are required to provide accurate and complete citations for all sources used in their research. Proper acknowledgment of the original authors and publications is essential. Any borrowed material, including direct quotations and paraphrased text, must be appropriately cited and accompanied by quotation marks or indentation.
  • Proper Use of Figures and Tables: Authors must obtain permission from the original copyright holder for the use of any figures, tables, images, or other copyrighted content in their manuscripts. Proper credit should be given to the original source, and the permission details should be provided at the time of submission.

It is important to avoid:

  • 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.
  • Multiple submissions: It is unethical to submit the same article to more than one journal at the same time. Doing this wastes the time of editors and peer reviewers, and can damage the reputation of the authors and the journals if published in more than one journal as the later publication will have to be retracted.
  • Redundant publications (or ‘salami’ publications): This means publishing many very similar articles based on the same experiment. Combining your results into one very robust article is more likely to be of interest to a selective journal. 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. Don’t forget to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution. Do not “gift” authorship to those who did not contribute to the article. 
  • Self-plagiarism: Authors are also expected to refrain from self-plagiarism, which involves reusing substantial portions of their own previously published work without appropriate citation. If authors wish to reuse parts of their previous work, they must obtain permission from the copyright holder and provide proper attribution.

The editorial team will conduct a thorough review to ensure the originality and authenticity of the submitted work. Readers, reviewers, and other stakeholders are encouraged to report any suspicions of plagiarism or academic misconduct to the editorial office of SET Journal. Such reports will be treated confidentially, and appropriate actions will be taken following an investigation. In cases where potential plagiarism is identified, the editorial team will investigate the matter further. If plagiarism or academic misconduct is detected in a submitted manuscript, the following actions may be taken:

a) Minor Plagiarism (<10% ): Minor Plagiarism involves a small portion 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 improper citation of sources. In cases of minor plagiarism, the author(s) will be contacted to provide proper citations and make the necessary corrections. The revised manuscript will undergo further evaluation.

b) Moderate Plagiarism (10-30% ): Moderate Plagiarism involves a more substantial amount of copied content from another source without proper citation or attribution. May include larger sections of text, multiple sentences or paragraphs. Could involve significant paraphrasing that closely follows the original wording without proper acknowledgment. The manuscript will be sent back to author for content revision.

c) Substantial Plagiarism (>30): Substential Plagiarism involves extensive and significant copying of content from another source without proper citation or attribution. May include entire sections, chapters, or large portions of the work. Could involve verbatim reproduction of the original work without proper acknowledgment. For cases of substantial plagiarism, the manuscript will be rejected without the review, and the author(s) may be banned from submitting to our journal in the future. However, authors are welcome to do the required revisions and submit the manuscript as a new submission.

d) Repeat Offenses: In instances of repeat offenses or severe plagiarism, the authors' institution(s) may be notified, and appropriate actions will be taken following the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

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.

If you come across a case of plagiarism, please do inform the editorial office, giving the title of article, name of authors, volume number, issue number, year of publication and any other information that you have. The editorial office will handle the cases as per their policy.

If plagiarism is detected after publication, the Journal will conduct an investigation. If plagiarism is found, the journal editorial office will contact the author's institute and funding agencies. The article containing the plagiarism will be marked on each page of the PDF. Depending on the extent of the plagiarism, the article may also be formally retracted.


Ethical use of AI tools

Using generative AI Tools ethically is critical to maintaining research integrity and credibility. Authors are responsible for the final text and should ensure their work is original and aligns with ethical publishing policies. When using generative AI tools, clearly mention their usage in your manuscript as you would with any other software. Therefore, authors should add the proper citations and attributions to meet the high ethical standards required in academic writing. Please. comply with ethical writing best practices by proactively addressing potential biases and ensuring balanced perspectives in all AI-generated content.


Preprint Policy

We allow researchers to submit papers that have been previously posted as preprints. At Science, Engineering and Technology journal, we recognize the value of preprints in promoting open access to research findings and facilitating rapid dissemination of new information. By allowing preprints, we aim to contribute to the advancement of science by facilitating the open sharing of research findings while maintaining 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 that has been posted as a preprint, authors must provide a citation to the preprint in the cover letter or manuscript text. This can be done by providing the preprint DOI or URL, along with any relevant additional information. The peer review process will evaluate the submitted manuscript independently, and the existence of a preprint will not influence the review process. However, reviewers and editors may consider feedback and discussions that have taken place on the preprint.

If accepted for publication, we encourage authors to 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: 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) made by the author(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. 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.

Upon receiving a notification of a potential fundamental error, the following steps will be taken:

  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 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 SET Journal, instead they are retained with a clear notice of retraction and bibliographic databases are notified, as per COPE retraction guidelines.

Transparency and Communication: When corrections or retractions are made, they will be prominently displayed on the journal's website, linked to the original article, and indexed in relevant databases. We appreciate the cooperation of authors, reviewers, readers, and the scientific community in promptly reporting and resolving any potential errors.


Withdrawal Policy

Withdrawing the article during peer review is an uncommon event. Authors who wish to withdraw their submitted manuscript from consideration for publication in Science, Engineering and Technology journal should notify the Editorial Office. The withdrawal request must be signed by the corresponding author of the manuscript. The corresponding author should submit the withdrawal request via email to info@setjournal.com.

Withdrawal requests will be considered valid under the following circumstances: a) The manuscript is a duplicate submission, either within the same journal or across multiple journals. b) The manuscript was submitted without the consent of all authors involved. c) Major errors or inaccuracies are discovered in the data or conclusions of the manuscript, which cannot be rectified within an acceptable timeframe. d) Ethical concerns are raised that cannot be resolved in a manner consistent with the journal's ethical guidelines. e) In case of a technical issue, such as a submission mistake or file corruption, that renders the manuscript unfit for peer review.

Upon receipt of a valid withdrawal request, the Editorial Office will acknowledge the request and the manuscript will no longer be under consideration for publication. Authors must not assume their article withdrawn until they have received an Formal Withdrawal Confirmation Letter from the journal. Else, SET journal reserves the right to legally raise objection on the publication of the said article in any other journal or platform.

Note that withdrawal is unethical and considered to violate scientific norms (i.e. poor scientific practice bordering on scientific misconduct) and must be done only in exceptional cases. Before you send us a mail with a withdrawal request, please consider that editors and reviewers have likely already invested significant time reviewing your article. Therefore, please let us know if there is anything we can do to avoid the withdrawal. We are happy to work with authors to remove any perceived barriers to publishing.

Withdrawal Penalties: Authors should be aware that withdrawal of a manuscript after initial submission may have certain consequences: a) If the manuscript has not yet entered the peer review process, no penalties will be imposed. b) If the manuscript has already undergone peer review, but the review process is not complete, the withdrawal will be processed, but the decision letter and reviewer comments will not be provided to the authors. c) If the manuscript has already undergone peer review but there is no updated progress review information after three months, no penalties will be imposed. d) If the manuscript has been accepted for publication (after peer review and revision), the withdrawal request will be carefully reviewed by the Editorial Board. The authors may be asked to provide a detailed explanation for the withdrawal, and the decision to grant the withdrawal request will be at the discretion of the Editorial Board. e) If the manuscript has already been published online or in print, it will not be withdrawn, but errata or corrections may be published as needed.


Statement 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 may be periodically reviewed and updated to reflect evolving best practices, changes in the journal's policies, or developments in publication ethics guidelines. The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement will be reviewed by the editorial board and journal management on an annual basis to remain aligned with the best practices in academic publishing and to uphold the highest standards of research integrity.


More information:

About the Journal

Author guidelines

Privacy statement

Per Review process

Editorial Team

Abstracting and indexing

Current issue and archive