2.1 ROLE OF EDITORIAL TEAM
- To review and resolve any complaint or appeal made by any individual concerning published/submitted scholarly work in the Journal.
- To ensure transparency in the submission article review process.
- To provide expertise in their field
- To collaborate with the Editor to ensure the journal's ongoing development.
- Identifying topics for Special Issues of the journal or recommending a Conference for Journal Promotion
- To entice new and established authors, as well as article submissions
- Accepting assignments to write editorials, reviews, and commentaries on papers in their field.
- To settle any potential disputes/disagreements that may arise among the authors in relation to the scholarly work published in the journal.
2.2 EDITOR'S GUIDELINES
2.2.1 Review of Manuscripts
Editors shall take all reasonable measures to safeguard the identity of peer referees and to guarantee that the peer review process is fair, impartial, and timely.
2.2.2 Publication Decision
The AJEST editor is in charge of selecting which of the papers submitted to the journal should be published. In reaching this choice, the editor may consult with other editors or reviewers.
2.2.3 Fair Play
An editor may assess submissions at any time for their intellectual merit and addition to existing knowledge, regardless of the authors' race, gender, religious belief, ethnic background, citizenship, or political ideology.
2.2.4 Confidentiality
The editor and any AJEST editorial staff must not reveal any information about a submitted article to anybody other than the corresponding author and reviewers.
2.2.5 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Without the author's express written permission, editors will not utilize unpublished information provided in a submitted article for their own research objectives. Submissions submitted by the Editor to a journal will be handled by a different Editor to ensure the process stays fair and impartial.
2.2.6 Intellectual Property
Prior to peer-review, editors will verify that all contributions are verified for originality using Turnitin software. Editors should be aware of intellectual property concerns in order to guarantee that the COPE guidance on intellectual property management is implemented.
2.2.7 Data Protection Requirements
Regarding data protection, the Editors agree to follow the General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (as amended, extended, re-enacted or replaced), the Data Protection Act 2018, Privacy and Electronic Communications (EC Directive) Regulations, and any codes of practice issued by the Information Commissioner from time to time.
2.3 REVIEWER'S GUIDELINES
2.3.1 Contribution to Editorial Decision
Peer review helps the editor make editorial choices, and editorial interactions with the author may help the author improve the work.
2.3.2 Acknowledgement of Sources
Referees should make certain that authors have acknowledged all data sources utilized in their reported study. If the reviewer discovers that the manuscript is identical to or overlaps with any previously published work, the Editor must be notified promptly.
2.3.3 Standards of Objectivity
Referees should not let the origins of a manuscript, the authors' nationality, religion or political convictions, gender or other traits, or economic reasons to affect their assessments. Referees should be impartial and helpful in their evaluations, avoiding being angry or provocative, as well as making libelous or disparaging personal remarks.
2.3.4 Promptness
The evaluation should be completed within the agreed-upon period. Furthermore, any chosen referee who believes he is unqualified to evaluate the research presented in a submission or understands that timely review would be difficult should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.
2.3.5 Confidentiality
Manuscripts for evaluation must be regarded as confidential materials. They must not be seen or discussed with anybody else.
2.3.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Confidential information or ideas acquired via peer review must be kept private and not utilized for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate submissions in which they have competing, collaborating, or other ties or affiliations with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the publications.
2.4 AUTHOR'S GUIDELINES
2.4.1 Reporting Standards
Original research authors should provide an accurate description of their work as well as an impartial assessment of its relevance. The underlying data should be properly reflected in the article. A paper should provide enough information and references to allow others to duplicate the work. Fraudulent or intentionally incorrect remarks are unethical and must be avoided.
2.4.2 Data Access and Retention
If possible, authors are requested to submit raw data in conjunction with an article for editorial review, and should be willing to keep such data for a reasonable period following publication.
2.4.3 Originality and Plagiarism
The writers should guarantee that their works are completely unique, and that if they have utilized the work and/or words of others, this has been properly credited or quoted.
2.4.4 Acknowledgement of Sources
It is always necessary to properly acknowledge the efforts of others. Authors should identify publications that have influenced the character of the presented study.
2.4.5 Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be restricted to individuals who made a substantial contribution to the study's idea, design, implementation, or interpretation. Co-authors should include everyone who made a substantial contribution. Others who have contributed to the substantive elements of the study endeavor should be recognized or mentioned as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that the article has all suitable co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors, and that all co-authors have read and approved the final version of the work and consented to its submission for publication.
2.4.6 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
Any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be perceived to affect the findings or interpretation of their article should be disclosed by all authors in their manuscript. All sources of funding for the project should be mentioned.
2.4.7 Fundamental Errors in Published Work
When an author finds a major mistake or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author's responsibility to inform the journal editor as soon as possible and to work with the editor to withdraw or rectify the article.
2.4.8 Human or Animal Subjects
All human studies must adhere to the Helsinki Declaration and local laws. Clinical trials should be cited at the end of the abstract. Informed consent for human subjects should be stated in the article. Human beings' private rights must always be respected. The corresponding author must confirm that all animal experiments were conducted in accordance with applicable guidelines and regulations. The manuscript must identify the institutional and/or licensing committee that approved the experiments.
2.4.9 Plagiarism Policy
The writers should guarantee that their works are entirely original, and that if they have utilized the work and/or words of others, this has been properly credited or quoted. The maximum amount of plagiarism that may be tolerated is 20%. The editor of the journal, on the other hand, may commence the investigation by evaluating any allegations of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or text recycling. If the assertions are correct, we will contact all identified authors to enquire about the overlapping material. We may request further feedback from Editorial Board members and the author's institution.
The journal's decision will be based on the author's research and response (s). Depending on the nature and severity of the problem, the following steps may be taken:
-
If a work is still being reviewed, it may be returned to the author with a suggestion that they remedy the problems via proper citation, the use of quotation marks to indicate direct citations, or rewriting.
- Manuscripts that are too similar to be edited may be rejected.
- If the information has already been published online, the author may supplement the work with a correction*, statement of concern, or retraction.
Note: In each of the scenario, the author's institution may also be contacted.
2.4.10 Journal Repository Policy
The Journal's repository policy seeks to enhance the accessibility and citation of its published articles.
The Asian Journal of Engineering, Sciences and Technology (AJEST) permits authors to deposit their published articles in non-profit institutional repositories or on their personal websites. The deposited article must be accompanied by a link to the Journal's homepage or the article's link on the journal website. Moreover, each article is assigned a specific link upon publication on the journal website.
2.4.11 Long-term Preservation Policy
Ensuring the continuous accessibility and preservation of scholarly research is a top priority for AJEST, and we are dedicated to achieving this by upgrading and converting digital file formats to align with emerging technology standards. To this end, we have a facility for storing a complete and accurate digital version. The facility adheres to current format standards, with the primary format being .pdf.
Back to top
