Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
In order to publish an article in a peer-reviewed journal “International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems”, it is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parties involved in the act of publishing, i.e., the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers and the publisher. Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Publication Decisions and Fair Play
The editors of the “International Journal of Electrical and Computer Engineering Systems” are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
The editors evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors 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Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in editors’ own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the article.
Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
All 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 editors.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement 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 editors’ attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published article of which they have personal knowledge.
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 connected to the articles.