Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

journals that publish scientific articles from various engineering / engineering disciplines namely mechanical engineering, industrial engineering, civil engineering. Articles published in the Engineering Journal include the results of original scientific research (top priority), scientific review articles that are new (not priority), or comments or criticisms of scientific writings published by the Engineering Journal

Starting in 2010, the TEKNIK Journal only accepts articles originating from the results of original research (top priority), and scientific review articles that are new (not priority).

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Engineering is applying the double blind review process. The authors are welcome to suggest at least three potential reviewers along with name and their email address. However, the decision to determine the appropriate reviewers is right of editor. The approved gallery proof of manuscript will early view online as early as possible upon received from author and final proof reading by editor in chief.


Plagiarism and self-plagiarism are not allowed. A software tool may be used so that the submitted articles are screened for plagiarism. Detection of overlapping and similar text is used there and so quotations and appropriate citations have to be used whenever required. It is basically author’s duty to only submit a manuscript that is free from plagiarism and academically malpractices. The editor, however, double checks each article before its publication. The first step is to check plagiarism against offline database by Engineering Editorial Board and, secondly, against as much as possible online databases.

 

Publication Frequency

April and November

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

 

Publication Ethic

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Section A: Publication and authorship

1. All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper. Reviewers are being selected by Associate Editors and Editor in Chief. Author also can propose reviewers for some journals and article types.
2. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, originality, readability, statistical validity and language.
3. The possible decisions include acceptance, minor revisions, major revision or rejection.
4. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
5. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
6. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
7. No research can be included in more than one publication, whether within the same journal or in another journal.

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscript is their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, or even submitted and been in reviewed in another journal.
3. Authors must participate in the peer review process and follow the comments.
4. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
5. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. Level of their contribution also must be defined in the “Authors’ Contributions” section of the article.
6. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
7. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
8. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
9. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors.
10. Authors must not use irrelevant sources that may help other researches/journals.
11. Authors cannot withdraw their articles within the review process or after submission, or they must pay the penalty defined by the publisher.

Section C: Peer review/responsibility for the reviewers

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information.
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. No self-knowledge of the author(s) must affect their comments and decision.
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments in 500 to 1000 words.
4. Reviewers may identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review 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 papers.

Section D: Editorial responsibilities

1. Editors (Associate Editors or Editor in Chief) have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers (in half blind peer review journals).
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to international accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions; they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.
15. Editors must not change their decision after submitting a decision (especially after reject or accept) unless they have a serious reason.

Section E: Publishing Ethics Issues

1. All editorial members, reviewers and authors must confirm and obey rules defined by COPE.
2. Corresponding author is the main owner of the article so she/he can withdraw the article when it is incomplete (before entering the review process or when a revision is asked for).
3. Authors cannot make major changes in the article after acceptance without a serious reason.
4. All editorial members and authors must will to publish any kind of corrections honestly and completely.
5. Any notes of plagiarism, fraudulent data or any other kinds of fraud must be reported completely to COPE.

Publication Charge

No submission, processing, page, colored figures or publication charges are received from authors or elsewhere.

All articles are freely available as early online and on the day of publication on the journal’s website

Plagiarism

We accept all terms and conditions of COPE about plagiarism and in case, any attempt of plagiarism is brought to our attention accompanied with convincing evidence, we act based on flowcharts and workflows determined in COPE.
All submissions will be checked with Google Scholar: New Submission and After Acceptance from the editorial boards.