Home   |   Sitemap
Forgot your Password?   Join us
Aims and Scope
Editorial Board
Ethical Guidelines
Home > PUBLICATION > Ethical Guidelines
Ethical Guidelines
1. Editors (Editor and Associate Editors)
1.1. The editors have sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a manuscript. The Editors should be respectful, fair, and civil in dealing with authors, and value their academic freedom.
1.2. Editors will give manuscripts unbiased consideration, using quality and the submission guidelines as the sole criteria for selection. Editors' decision should not be affected by the author's sex, age or affiliation. Nor should it be swayed by editors' biases or personal relationships.
1.3. An editor should refer a manuscript to researchers of scholars who are experts in the field and capable of objective and thorough review. To ensure fair and objective review, referees should not be selected from among the author's close colleagues or friends, or from among those with whom the author has had controversy or personal enmity.
1.4. Editors should not disclose information about authors and submitted manuscripts except to reviewers.
2. Reviewers
2.1. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript thoroughly and objectively within the given time and send his comments to the editor. A reviewer should decline to review a manuscript if the manuscript is beyond his expertise, if a timely review can't be done, or if the manuscript is from a competitor with whom the reviewer has had an acrimonious professional relationship, or if there is a conflict of interest.
2.2. Reviewers should give the manuscript a fair evaluation based on academic integrity and objective criteria. The reviewer should not unduly criticize the manuscript without sufficient grounds. Nor should he reject it simply because it disagrees with his viewpoint or interpretation.
2.3. Reviewers should be respectful and civil toward the author and value his academic freedom. Reviewers should clearly support and justify the basis for their review analysis. Reviewers should clearly indicate a recommendation for or against the publication of the manuscript. When suggesting revisions or changes, reviewers should provide clear, detailed explanations for them.
2.4. Reviewers should treat the manuscript as confidential. Reviewers should ask the Editor for permission to discuss the paper with others for specific advice, giving names and reasons for such consultation. Reviewers should not use the contents of the manuscript in their own work until that manuscript is in press or published unless the author grants the permission to do so.
3. Authors
3.1. Plagiarism is not tolerated under any circumstances. Plagiarism is the act of intentionally or unintentionally passing off somebody else's original writing as your own without properly citing the original sources. Plagiarism applies to ideas, expression (words, sentences, paragraphs, graphs, diagrams, photos etc.), hypothesis, method (conceptual framework or logic), theory, research results, data, research materials and others.
3.2. Self-plagiarism constitutes a special type of plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is publication of a paper that overlaps substantially with one already published. Using one's own publication as a whole or in parts without properly indicating the sources constitutes plagiarism. Self-plagiarism is in violation of research ethics and is not condoned.
3.3. The author should not resubmit a manuscript to a journal when it has already been published elsewhere. This ban applies to the manuscript accepted for publication or under review by another journal. If the author wishes to publish a manuscript by reusing a previously published work in its entirely or in parts, he should contact the editor of the journal where he intends to publish the work and inquire about the possibility of double-publishing.
3.4. The author should bear responsibility for his own research and contributions and should receive due credits for them. Co-authors should be listed in the order of contribution. An individual should not be listed as the primary author simply because he holds a senior position. At the same time, anyone who renders substantial contribution to research or writing should be listed as a co-author.
3.5. The author should accurately attribute the sources of materials he uses. The author is expected to provide the source of the information unless it is common knowledge. When the author quotes sentences or borrow ideas from another work, he should add citations for them.
4. Implementation Guidelines
4.1. The author who has submitted a manuscript to IJeN or the reviewer who has agreed to evaluate a manuscript is deemed to be regulated by the Guidelines.
4.2. The IJeN will take measures to redress the problems that result from the violation of the Guidelines by and author or reviewer. If the problems are not corrected or if a violation of the Guidelines becomes clear, the matter will be referred to our Steering Committee.
4.3. The Director of IJeN should convene a Steering Committee meeting within 15 days of the Guidelines violation. In this case, the Director of IJeN chairs the meeting and the membership of the Steering Committee is identical with that of IJeN's Steering Committee.
4.4. The Steering Committee conducts a full investigation into the reported Guidelines violation relying on witnesses and support materials. If accusation is proved true, the Steering Committee will take appropriate punitive measures against the violator. The Steering Committee will decide by a two thirds majority vote of all eligible members.
4.5. The accused should fully cooperate with the Steering Committee's investigation. Non-cooperation with Steering Committee's investigation itself constitutes a violation of the Guidelines. Investigation and review should be completed within 30 days and may be extended once. In the process, the accused should be given ample opportunity to defend himself.
4.6. Until the Steering Committee reaches a final decision on the case, Steering Committee members should not reveal identify of the accuser and the accused.
4.7. The Steering Committee may impose punitive measures against the violator of the Guidelines, including a warning, discontinuation of the review process, no research support for a specified period, and revocation of the publication. If necessary, other institutions or individuals may be notified of such punitive measure.