Publishing Ethics

Ethics and malpractice statement

Publication Ethics Statement

For all parties involved in the publication (author, journal editor(s), peer reviewer and publisher) it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior. The ethics statements for the ENP Engineering Science Journal  are based on the  Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

Fairness

The editor should evaluate submitted papers for intellectual content regardless to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the author(s). The editor should not disclose any information about a manuscript under consideration to anyone other than the author(s) and the reviewers.

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.

Publication

The responsible editor of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published and the editor-in-chief makes the final decision about the articles to be published.

Based on the review report, the editor has complete responsibility and authority to accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers.

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 in the paper.

Acknowledgement of sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the execution of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. 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.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the editor so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the editor.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

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 associated with the papers.

Authors' duties

Reporting standards

Authors of original research reports 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.

Data access and retention

Authors could be asked to provide the raw data of their study together with the paper for editorial review and should be prepared to make the data publicly available if practicable. In any event, authors should ensure accessibility of such data to other competent professionals for at least ten years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository or other data center), provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Authors will submit only entirely original works, and will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work should also be cited.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

In general, papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

ENPESJ Editor considers retracting an article if

• Clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (e.g., miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g., of data) or falsification (e.g., image manipulation).
• It constitutes plagiarism.
• The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (i.e., cases of redundant publication).
• It contains material or data without authorization for use.
• Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue.
• It reports unethical research.
• The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Retractions are not appropriate if

• The authorship is disputed but there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings.
• The main findings of the work are still reliable and correction could sufficiently address errors or concerns.
• Author conflicts of interest have been reported to the journal after publication, but in the editor’s view, these are not likely to have influenced interpretations, recommendations, or the conclusions of the article.