Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Ethical of the Publisher
The publication of an article in the peer-reviewed journals published by Researcher and Lecturer Society is process of permanent knowledge improvement. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer, the publisher and the society of society-owned or sponsored journals.
We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprint or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful to editors.
Ethical of the Editor
Publication decisions
The editor of a peer-reviewed Journal of Engineering Researcher and Lecturer is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair play
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations
An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
Ethical of the reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method.
Promptness
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Confidentiality
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and conflict of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Ethical of the authors
Reporting standards
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. "Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable". Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data, if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from 'passing off' another's paper as the author's own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another's paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
Acknowledgment of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors ( so its mean that manuscript at least have author and co author). Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author's obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper.
Allegation of Research Misconduct
Research misconducts cover severe problems such as fabrication, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in the generating, carrying out, or reviewing research and writing articles, or reporting findings. When research misconduct occurs regarding articles published in scientific journals, the Editor is responsible for ensuring the correctness and integrity of scientific records. The Editorial team adheres to employ the best practice of COPE to investigate the allegation of research misconduct. It also employs solving complaints and dealing with such misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation into allegations by the Editor.
Submission will be rejected if it is indicated research misconduct. In case, if it has occurred to the published article, that article will be removed/deleted from the journal and will be attached to the original article. Some steps are obtained to investigate the research misconduct. As the first step, the validity of the allegation is determined. In this step, the article will be evaluated whether the allegation is relevant to the term research misconduct. If an article is suspected of research misconduct, the Editor will notify the corresponding author and request the authors to respond to the allegation.
After the Editor received the response, it will be evaluated for taking further decisions. For other cases where research misconduct will not be impossible to occur, either clarification or additional analysis, or both, issued as a letter to the editor. The letter also includes an amended notification and an amendment to the published article is sufficient.
Appropriate and comprehensive investigations should be conducted by institutions on allegations of research misconduct or allegation of scientific morality. Authors, Editors, and institutions must be responsible to ensure scientific integrity. Journal of Engineering Researcher and Lecturer concerns about scientific and research misconduct allegations. Therefore, Journal of Engineering Researcher and Lecturer adheres to ensuring the validity and integrity of published articles. Amendments, removal with article substitution, and permanent removal from the journal will be addressed to the article that has been allegation suspected.
Complaints and Appeals
Journal of Engineering Researcher and Lecturer has a clear procedure to manage any complaints to the journal, editorial board, or publisher. Those will be clarified to whom it may concern. The complaints cover anything related to the article matters such as editorial process, manipulation of citations, improper editor/reviewer, manipulation of per-review, etc. Complaints will be proceed based on COPE guidelines.
Ethical Oversight
If research material involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures or tools with uncommon dangers when using it, research has to identify it clearly in the manuscript to fulfil the research ethic on using animals and humans. If necessary, researchers have to provide ethics law permission from a law association or organization.
If research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, researchers have to clearly justify whether data or information will be safely hidden or not.
Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections
Journal of Engineering Researcher and Lecturer accepts discussions and corrections of the published manuscript by readers. Readers involve in discussions and corrections to published manuscripts. Readers can email the Editor in Chief by explaining the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the Editor in Chief), the discussion and corrections will be published in the next issue as a Letter to the Editor. The authors can reply/answer discussions and corrections from readers by sending a Reply Letter to the Editor in Chief. Therefore, the Editor can publish the answer as a Reply Letter to the Editor.
Rerenceses
2. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines on Editors in Chief sharing
3. World Medical Association (WMA) Helsinki Declaration for Medical Research in Human Subject
4. Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments (ARRIVE) Guidelines
5. Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
6. Ethical Guidelines for Educational Research, fifth edition (2024)
