Ethics Publications and Unfair Practices

The editors of the journal "Recent in Engineering Science and Technology" have certain requirements regarding the selection and acceptance of articles submitted by authors. These rules are determined by the scientific field covered by the journal.

When preparing articles on the publication ethics policy of the journal " Recent in Engineering Science and Technology", the editors took into account the recommendations of the Editor and Reviewer based on the results of the double-blind reading .

A key feature of the scientific community is its acceptance of a moral code that sets out the basic rules of conduct and responsibility of members of the scientific community to each other and to the public. Such codes are defined by the intent to best serve the professional community, limit actions that might serve personal interests, and protect authors' intellectual property rights.

Ethical Obligations of Editors of Scientific and Technical Journals

All submitted materials are carefully selected and reviewed. The editorial board reserves the right to reject articles or return them for improvement. Authors are obliged to improve their articles according to the comments of reviewers and editors.
Editors should consider all manuscripts offered for publication without prejudice, evaluating their merits, regardless of race, religion, nationality, status, or institutional affiliation of the author.
Editors should promptly review manuscripts submitted for publication.
Publisher is solely responsible for accepting or rejecting articles. In order to fulfill their responsible and sensible obligations, editors should seek the advice of the necessary subject matter doctorate referees on the quality and reliability of manuscripts submitted for publication. However, the manuscript may be rejected without external review if the editors deem it unsuitable for the journal.
Editors and editorial staff should not disclose any information about manuscripts under review except to those seeking professional advice. After a positive decision on the manuscript, it must be published in the journal and on the journal's website.
Editors should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
Editorial responsibility and authority over manuscripts written by the editor and submitted to the editor's journal should be delegated to another qualified person, such as a member of the editorial board.
If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main content or conclusions of a report published in the editor's journal are erroneous, the editor will facilitate the publication of a proper report and point out the error , should be fixed if possible. A report can be created by the person who found the error or by the original author.
Authors may request that editors not use specific reviewers for their manuscripts. However, the editor may decide to use one or more of these reviewers if they consider their opinion important to the fair review of the manuscript. This is the case, for example, if the manuscript deviates significantly from the potential reviewer's previous work.
Please note that the decision to index a journal in databases and other indexing resources of scholarly journals worldwide does not depend on the editorial board. It is part of the journal and not part of the publishing process.

By submitting an article for publication, the author authorizes the journal to be indexed in any of the world's databases and other resources for indexing scholarly journals at the time of publication of the issue containing the author's published article. I agree that is subject to change.

Editors ensure the placement of information relevant to the development of the journal.

Ethical Obligations of Authors

The main task of the author is to present an accurate description of the research conducted and an objective discussion of its significance.
Authors should recognize that journal space is a limited resource and use it wisely and economically.
The primary research report should contain sufficient detail and references to public sources to enable the author's colleagues to repeat the work. Upon request, the author will provide a rare sample of material not available elsewhere with appropriate material transfer agreements to limit the scope of use of the material to protect the legitimate interests of the author reasonable efforts must be made.
Authors should cite publications that quickly lead the reader to previous research that is influential in determining the nature of the reported study and essential to understanding the current investigation. Except for reviews, citing studies not referenced in the reported study should be kept to a minimum. Authors should do a literature search to find and cite the original publication that describes a closely related work. Proper attribution must be given for material material used in the work, even if provided by someone other than the author.
Any unusual hazards encountered during the investigation should be clearly identified in the manuscript reporting the work.
Fragmentation of research reports should be avoided. Scientists who have conducted extensive research on a system or group of related systems should structure their publications so that each report comprehensively describes a specific aspect of the research in general.
When submitting manuscripts for publication, authors should notify the editor of any relevant manuscripts that they are editing or printing. Copies of these manuscripts should be made available to editors and the relationship between such manuscripts and submitted manuscripts should be indicated.
Manuscripts describing substantially identical research by authors are not permitted to be submitted to multiple journals in which they were originally published. It is generally acceptable to submit manuscripts of complete works that expand on previously published brief preliminary descriptions (“communications” or “letters”) of the same work. However, at the time of submission, the editor's attention should be drawn to the previous correspondence , preliminary correspondence should be cited in the manuscript.
Experimental or theoretical research may justify criticism, even harsh criticism, of another scientist's work. Where appropriate, such criticisms may be expressed in published articles. However, personal criticism is never appropriate.
Research co-authors should be all people who make significant scientific contributions to the reported research and who share responsibility and accountability for the results. Other contributions should be noted in the footnotes or acknowledgments section. An administrative relationship with research alone does not qualify an individual for co-authorship (although in some cases it may be appropriate to grant more administrative support). Deceased individuals who meet the criteria for inclusion as co-authors should be included, with a footnote indicating the date of death. You may not use fictitious names as authors or co-authors. Authors submitting manuscripts for publication are responsible for including all appropriate and no inappropriate co-authors. Contributing authors must send a draft of the manuscript to each living co-author and obtain their consent.
Authors should disclose to editors and readers of the journal any potential and/or related competing interests, financial or otherwise, that could be adversely affected by the publication of results contained in the author's manuscript. I have. All authors must have no significant personal financial interest, no employment with or company with financial or other interests that could influence the results presented in the manuscript. Do not have any other relationship.

Ethical Obligations of Manuscript Reviewers

Peer review of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process and, therefore, in the application of the scientific method, so all scientists are obliged to make an appropriate contribution to peer review.
Selected reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research reported in the manuscript should promptly return it to the editor.
Reviewers of the manuscript should objectively assess the quality of the manuscript, its experimental and theoretical work, its interpretation and its presentation, with due regard to maintaining high academic and literary standards. Reviewers should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
Reviewers should be aware of conflicts of interest when the manuscript under review is closely related to the reviewer's ongoing or published research. If in doubt, reviewers should immediately return the manuscript unchecked and notify the editor of the conflict of interest.
Reviewers should not score manuscripts authored or co-authored by persons who have a personal or professional relationship with the reviewer if that relationship affects the evaluation of the manuscript.
Reviewers should treat manuscripts submitted for review as confidential. It should not be shown or discussed with others except in special cases from someone who can get specific advice. In this case, the identity of the person consulted must be disclosed to the publisher.
Reviewers should adequately explain and justify their decisions so that editors and authors can understand the rationale for their comments. Any statement that a finding, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by appropriate citations. Unsubstantiated claims by reviewers (or countered by authors) are of little value and should be avoided.
Reviewers should acknowledge that authors have not cited relevant work by other scholars, bearing in mind that complaints that their own work is under-cited may appear selfish. Care should be taken: Reviewers should alert editors to significant similarities between the manuscript in question and a published article or a manuscript submitted to another journal at the same time.
Experts must act quickly and submit reports in a timely manner.
Reviewers should use or disclose unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in the manuscript under review only with the author's permission. If this information indicates Appraisers' work is unlikely to be profitable, but they may stop working for ethical reasons.

Violation measures

If you suspect that a reviewer has adopted an author's ideas or data:

The case will only be considered if documentary evidence of the author and/or other sources of information is provided. Publications, abstracts, conference reports, slide copies, funding applications, etc. and after examining the evidence (or contacting an appropriately qualified expert) to determine whether the claims made by the authors and/or other sources are valid.
If the accusation is substantiated, a referral will be made to the expert and the institution of which he is an employee.
Links between suspects and nominated experts are also checked by same department, personal relationships, and other conflicts of interest.
If the reviewer's guilt is proven, the reviewer will be permanently removed from the publisher's database.
If the borrowed ideas or data are published in another source, a request will be made to the relevant public source to accept a retraction policy for the published material.

If you suspect an ethical issue with your manuscript:

Such suspicions may arise, for example, when: because lack of ethical acknowledgment/concerns about patient consent or protection/concerns about animal testing, etc.
Contributors are asked to provide relevant details (such as a copy of an Ethics Committee certificate or informed consent form).
If the relevant documents are not submitted