ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENTS
To maintain the highest possible standards of publishing ethics, the Sustainable Energy and Advanced Materials (SEAM) journal is dedicated to taking appropriate precautions to prevent publication malpractice. Our responsibility is to disseminate original work to the intellectual community in the best possible form and the highest standards possible. Our expectations for the publisher, reviewers, and authors are all at the same level of professionalism. To accomplish our objective, we must maintain the highest standards of integrity, originality, and fair dealing from authors and the highest standards of fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality from editors and reviewers, among many other things. Sustainable Energy and Advanced Materials accepts and conforms to the codes of conduct and international standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and it conducts it accordingly. SEAM is dedicated to following best practices in ethics, errors, and retractions and providing legal review as required by the situation.
This statement applies to all involved in the publication process (the editors, the editorial board members, the reviewers, the authors, and the publisher). It is based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
1. Publication Decisions
- Editor-in-Chief(s), Associate Editor-in-Chief(s), Section Editors, Assistant Editors, and Copy-editors are roles within the journal's Editorial Team.
- Editor-in-Chief(s) are in authority to select which submitted articles should be published in the journal.
- Editor-in-Chief(s) has complete control over the entire editorial content of the journal, as well as the timeliness of its publishing
- Editor-in-Chief(s) are responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the journal will be published, depending on the work's validity, significance to researchers and readers, reviewers' comments, and any relevant legal requirements, including libel, contempt, copyright laws, and plagiarism.
- Editors may consult with other members of the editorial board, editors, or reviewers to decide.
- Editor-in-Chief(s) shall guarantee that the government policies or other authority outside the journal do not influence review and publication decisions.
- Editors guarantee that all submitted manuscripts for publication are peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers who are experts in the field.
- Editors are accountable for managing and confirming that the peer-review editorial process is fair, timely, comprehensive, and respectful.
- Editor-in-Chief(s) may sometimes reject manuscripts without peer review to make the best use of their resources because they are outside the journal's scope, do not meet the journal's quality standards, limited scientific merit, or lack originality or novel information.
- Section editors are responsible for obtaining reviews of each manuscript and for evaluating it promptly.
- Assistant editors should work closely with the Editor-in-Chief(s) to promote, produce, and expand the journal.
- Copy-editors check manuscripts to ensure that content is free of spelling, grammar and punctuation errors and complies with the journal's editorial style
- Copy-editors should work closely with the Editor-in-Chief (s)to maintain the quality of the journal
- Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic merit (importance, originality, research validity, clarity, readability etc.) and relevance to the journal's scope.
- Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors, reviewers, editorial board members and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Fair Play
- Editors should guarantee that the peer review process is fair and appropriate.
- Editors should handle all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency
- Editors evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Editors should maintain the journal's internal integrity
- Editors do not utilise unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research without the authors' explicit written consent
- Editors keep any privileged information or ideas obtained because of handling the manuscript confidential and not exploit them for personal benefit.
- Editors shall protect the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions, when necessary, as well as investigating and prosecuting suspected or alleged research or publishing malpractice.
- Editors shall excuse from evaluating manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborating, or other relationships/connections with any authors, institutions, or institutions associated with the articles; instead, they delegate the manuscript to another editorial board member.
- Editors-in-Chief(s) promptly resolve the matter when ethical concerns about a submitted manuscript or a published article are raised.
- Editor-in-Chief(s) are responsible for investigating any alleged act of unethical publishing behaviour shall continue, even if the conduct is discovered years after it was published.
- Editors-in-Chief(s) deal with instances of alleged misconduct by the COPE flowchart. When the ethical concern is determined to be valid after further inquiry, the journal publishes a correction, retraction, statement of concern, or other appropriate comments.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBER RESPONSIBILITIES
1. Publication Decisions
- Editorial board is composed of a group of renowned experts in the area who serves on the board.
- Editorial Board members may be asked to contribute to journal content submission
- Editorial Board members are supporting Editor-in-Chief in handling ethical issues, complaints and appeals regarding the publication standards
- Editorial Board members are providing guidelines to maintain the journal according to standards.
- Editorial Board Members are responsible for making decisions on whether to publish papers that have been submitted.
- Editorial Board Members are accountable to review manuscripts solely based on their intellectual content.
- Editorial Board Members are providing scientific expertise for the journal
- Editorial Board Members are fascinating new authors and submitting high-quality manuscripts
- Editorial Board Members are cooperating with the Editor-in-Chief(s) to shape the overall strategy of the journal.
- Editorial Board Members are serving as a peer review
- Editorial Board Members are helping to promote high-quality manuscript submission
- Editorial Board Members are suggesting topics and authors for commissioned reviews and commentaries
- Editorial Board Members contribute to the policy, scope, quality, value, and even the journal's reputation.
- Editorial Board members evaluate submitted manuscripts solely based on their academic merit (importance, originality, research validity, clarity, readability etc.) and relevance to the journal's scope.
- Editorial Board Members are required to maintain the confidentiality of information relevant to submitted manuscripts.
- Editorial Board members must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript other than the Editor-in-Chief (s).
2. Fair Play
- Editorial Board Members should ensure that the peer review process is fair and appropriate.
- Editorial Board Members should handle all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty, and transparency
- Editorial Board Members s evaluate manuscripts based on their intellectual content, regardless of the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnic origin, citizenship, institutional affiliation, or political philosophy of the authors.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Editorial Board Members should disclose any conflicts of interest.
- Editorial Board members do not utilise unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research without the authors' explicit written consent
- Editorial Board Members assist the Editor-in-Chief(s) in decision making over issues such as plagiarism claims and submissions where reviewers can't agree on a decision.
1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
- Peer review facilitates the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and may also assist the author in enhancing the work through the editorial communication with the author.
- If any invited reviewers feel unable to review the study presented in a submission or think that timely review would be difficult, they should immediately inform the Editor-in-Chief so that alternate reviewers may be selected.
- If a reviewer cannot complete reviewing a manuscript within the stipulated time, then a reviewer must inform the Editor-in-Chief to transfer the article to another reviewer.
- Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential material and should not be disclosed and shared with anyone else except if authorised by the Editor-in-chief.
4. Standards of Objectivity
- Reviews should be carried out professionally, with honesty, fairness, and objectivity.
- Personal criticisms of the author are not permitted under any circumstances.
- Reviewers must express their opinions clearly and provide relevant supporting arguments
5. Acknowledgement of Sources
- Reviewers should highlight relevant published work that the authors have not cited.
- Any statement that an observation, explanation, or previously published argument should be supported by the appropriate reference.
- Reviewers should bring to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief any significant similarities or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published work about which they have personal knowledge.
6. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
- Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest.
- Reviewers do not utilise unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their research without the authors' explicit written consent
- Reviewers must be kept any privileged information or ideas obtained because of handling the manuscript confidential and not exploit them for personal advantage.
- Reviewers shall excuse from reviewing manuscripts in which they have competing, collaborating, or other relationships/connections with any authors, institutions, or institutions associated with the articles; they should promptly inform the Editor-in-Chief(s).
1. Reporting Standards
- Authors should bear collective accountability for their work that has been submitted and published.
- Authors should be avoided the creation of false or deliberately inaccurate claims since it is unethical and prohibited.
- Authors describe their findings clearly, honestly, and without the use of fabrication, falsification, or inappropriate data manipulation to achieve their conclusions.
- Authors presenting the original research findings should include a thorough description of the work done and an objective evaluation of the relevance of the findings.
- Authors should attempt to describe their methods clearly and unambiguously so that their findings can be independently confirmed
- Authors must provide sufficient detail and citations to make the work reproducible by others.
The original data should be reported accurately in the article.
- Review articles should be precise, accurate, factual, fair, and comprehensive, while editorial 'opinion' and judgment should be recognised.
2. Data Access and Retention
- Authors may be requested to provide their study's raw data along with their article for editorial review, and they should be prepared to make the data publicly accessible if possible.
- Authors should provide such data available to other qualified professionals for at least 10 years after publication, provided that the participants' confidentiality can be maintained and that legal restrictions on private data do not prevent its release.
3. Originality and Plagiarism
- Authors must ensure that their works are entirely original, and if they have utilised the work and words of others, they must provide appropriate credit to them.
- Authors must submit work done ethically, responsibly, and by all relevant regulations.
- Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the work reported in the manuscript should also be cited appropriately.
- Authors must be avoided plagiarism, in any form, as unethical publication behaviour.
- The journal authorises a plagiarism detection system like Turnitin, although only 25% similarity is allowed.
4. Multiple Submission
- Authors must declare that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere
- Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
- Authors should prevent submitting the same article to more than one publication since this is unethical and unprofessional.
5. Acknowledgement of Sources
- Appropriate acknowledgement of others' work must always be provided.
- Authors should also provide citations to publications that have an impact to identify the nature of the work being described.
- Authors are required to cite all the sources that were utilised in the creation of their manuscripts.
- Authors must declare that all the content included in the manuscript is genuine.
- Authors should not utilise or disclose private information (including conversations, correspondence, or discussions with third parties) without the source's written consent.
- Authors should not provide confidential services unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work.
6. Authorship of a Manuscript
- Authorship should be restricted to those who contributed significantly to the study's conception, design, execution, conduct and interpretation.
- Co-authors should be listed as those who have made significant contributions. Others who have contributed to the research study should be acknowledged in an Acknowledgement section.
- Corresponding author should verify that all co-authors have reviewed, approved the article's final version, and agreed to it submitting for publication.
- Corresponding Authors must certify that the authorship accurately reflects individuals' contributions to the work and its reporting
7. Hazards and Human/Animal Subjects
- Authors must identify any unusual hazards associated with the use of chemicals, procedures, or equipment in their manuscript.
- Authors should confirm that all procedures were documented and authorised by the appropriate institutional committee when the study involves the use of animals or human subjects
- Authors should include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for research with human subjects, and the privacy rights of human subjects must always be observed.
8. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
- Authors should be disclosed any financial or other substantial conflicts of interest that may influence the findings or their interpretation of the article in their manuscript.
- Authors should disclose relevant funding sources and any existing or potential conflicts of interest.
- Authors should be declared all sources of financial support ((including the grant number or other reference number, if any) for the project.
9. Peer Review
- Authors are required to engage in the peer-review process and cooperate completely by promptly responding to editors' requests for raw data, explanations and evidence of ethical approval, patient consent and copyright permissions.
- Authors should respond to the reviewers' comments thoroughly, point by point, and promptly, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal by the deadline given as soon as received "revisions required"
10. Fundamental Errors in Published Works
- When an author finds a significant mistake or inaccuracy in their published work, the author's responsibility is to inform the Editor-in-Chief as soon as possible and request the article be corrected or retracted.
- Authors responsibility are to correct or retract a published work if the editors or publisher learns of the error or inaccuracy through a third party.
11. Publication Guidelines
- Authors must conform to the journal's submission guidelines to be considered for publication.
12. Submission Check Form
- Authors are required to satisfy the checklist for author submissions.
- Publisher confirms that journal editors, editorial board members, authors, reviewers, and other stakeholders adopt the best publishing policies and procedures.
- Publisher strives for a more effective academic communication system for journal governance.
- Publisher supports the publishing and indexing of all journal articles.
- Publishers ensure that the Editorial team meets production schedules and complete the work on time.
- Publisher collaborates with the editor committees to develop journal policies and standards that are appropriate to the journal.
- Publisher should verify the publication rights and licensing agreement before publication
- Publisher working closely with Editor-in-Chief(s) take all necessary steps to clarify things or correct any errors in an article where scientific misconduct, fraudulent publishing, or plagiarism is suspected or confirmed.
- Publisher should be resolved an erratum, clarification, or the retraction of the concerned work promptly.
- Publisher and Editor-in-Chief must work together to detect and prevent publishing articles that include research misconduct, and they must never promote and enable research misconduct to occur.
- Publisher and the Journal do not differentiate based on age, colour, faith, ethnicity, disability, marital status, veteran status, national origin, race, gender, genetic predisposition or carrier status, or sexual orientation
- Publisher employs ethics panels to recommend publication misconducts, issues related to journal policy and guidelines, and ethics periodically.
- Publisher is responsible for investigating any potential publishing misconduct and resolving any situations of alleged publishing malpractice.
- Publisher is responsible for reviewing and updating the journal's policies regularly as required.