Journal Publication Ethics & Guidelines

International Journal of Renewable Energy Exchange

Table of Contents

Statement on Ethics and Misconduct in Publication Practices

All parties involved in the publication process, including the author(s), journal editor(s), peer reviewers, and publishers must agree on standards of expected ethical behavior when it comes to publishing a research paper in the university Journals. The Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) has prescribed the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors which serve as the foundation for the International Publishing History's Ethics declarations. Shri JJTU follows the above in totality.

Listed below are the guidelines for research paper publication in the University listed four journals as well as ethical practices both for the author(s), editor(s) and reviewers.

Author's Responsibilities

The author of the paper has prime responsibility that the paper is written as per the guidelines & the format specified by the university. Following points shall be adhered to:

Editor's Responsibilities

Accountability

Editorial responsibility for all content published in a peer-reviewed journal rests with the editor; he/she also decides which papers submitted for publication should be published. While making these choices, the editor may be guided by the journal's editorial board policies as well as legal obligations like plagiarism, libel, and copyright infringement. The editor may discuss with reviewers or other editors before choosing what to publish. The integrity of the academic record should be maintained, financial pressures should not be allowed to compromise moral and intellectual standards, and the editor should always be ready to publish retractions, explanations, corrections, and statements of apology when needed.

The editor must make an effort to ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process and not let it be affected because of their competitive, cooperative, or other links with the authors, businesses, or organizations that are involved in the papers. The editors are not liable to review manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. In case of conflict of interest of any nature whatsoever; to manage the bias free review process, the editor ought to look for an associate editor, co-editor, or other editorial board member. To avoid this lengthy and cumbersome process, editors are required to make sure that all authors declare any pertinent conflicting interests and to publish any corrections if they are revealed after the work has been published.

Equity

The editor should evaluate articles to be published solely for intellectual substance without considering the color, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnic origin, citizenship, and or political philosophy of the author or authors. The editor shall not discuss a manuscript under consideration for publication with anybody other than the concerned author or authors, reviewers or potential reviewers, and, if applicable, editorial board members. Only the concerned authors, reviewers or prospective reviewers, any editorial advisers and the publisher, if appropriate may receive information about a submitted article from the editor and from any editorial staff.

Conflicting interests, revelations, and other issues

When determining whether to retract, voice concerns about, or make corrections to articles in International Public History, the editor will adhere to COPE's Guidelines for Retracting Articles. Unpublished materials contained in a manuscript should not be used for an editor's own research without the written consent of the author. Peer-reviewed classified material should be maintained confidential and not used for selfish purposes. The editor is committed to making sure that advertising, reprints, and other forms of commercial income have no bearing on or influence while accepting a manuscript and deciding to publish the paper.

Collaboration and Involvement in investigations

In order to ensure the accuracy of the information released, editors must look into any suspected misconduct in research and publication, correct errors, and retract papers if needed. Both editorial and reviewers' misconduct must be addressed by editor if ethical issues are brought up regarding a submitted manuscript or published paper, the editor is required to take the necessary action.

Editorial Policy

To publish excellent papers in all areas of research on "Science, Engineering & Applied Science" is the aim of the International Journal of Renewable Energy Exchange. Additionally, the publication encourages the submission of insightful reports on successful discoveries. This is an international journal with open access, open peer review, and quality control.

Each journal edition consists of four distinct issues beginning in 2013. There will be a minimum of five papers in each edition. All issues will be current issues, and all accepted manuscripts will be immediately posted online. Authors can take advantage of 'Zero Waiting Time' for their papers to be published when they are formally accepted under the most recent running issue concept.

This Journal is international in scope and is not restricted by national or regional borders.

Note: No academic society, nation, or geographic area is associated with this international journal. This journal runs on its own. The editorial office and other offices' legal contact details are available on the website.

Criteria for Publication

The new policy is set to come into force from the beginning of the following month and has following specifications:

Model of Online Publication

We highly recommend the "ONLINE" publishing model. However, we acknowledge that some authors may need "Reprints" as well. If needed, reprints can be ordered through the given mail for displaying the article's potential at interviews, conferences, distribution to colleagues, seminars, and other promotional activities. 'Reprint Charge' (RC) varies from Article Processing Charge (APC) or Publication Charge.

Determining the Issue of Authorship

When a work is submitted to this journal, it indicates that the author or authors agree with its content. All correspondence pertaining to publications must identify one author as the corresponding author. Unless otherwise noted at the time of submission, all correspondence and supporting documentation will be directed to the corresponding author, who will act as the primary point of contact for all authors regarding decisions pertaining to the article.

Any disagreements over authorship pertaining to a submitted work are not the journal's responsibility. Any changes to that authorship, such as adding or deleting authors or altering the order of authors, must be communicated to the editorial office with a letter signed by each author prior to the publication of the work. Authorizing the 'Galley proof' will act as confirmation of authorship agreement in the absence of a signed letter. Typically, COPE principles are followed for any conflicts and any changes to the authorship after publication are not taken into account.

Mechanism for Peer Review

To ensure objective evaluation, all journals used a strict double-blind review procedure to ensure a fair evaluation, the identity of the authors and reviewers are kept secret during this procedure. We have switched to a rigorous and transparent "Advanced OPEN peer review" approach (further information is available at this link). At least two colleagues in the same field evaluate high-caliber articles.

Throughout the review process, authors and reviewers can see each other's identities thanks to the OPEN peer review system. The Article Information section on the first page of every published paper includes details about all reviewers and academic editors in an effort to promote transparency. Review comments, authors' feedback, document versions editorial comments are all published alongside the work under the 'Review History' link, along with the date, to ensure maximum openness.

Any possible deliberate meddling in the peer review process by people (publishing personnel, reviewers, editors, authors, etc.) will be avoided by this transparent procedure. Every reviewer will be given the respect and recognition they deserve when their names appear in the articles because of this unique system. We will honor reviewers' requests to remain anonymous if they so desire. Only the evaluation reports will be made public under the name "anonymous reviewer report" in that case.

Furthermore, we think that "improving the quality of a candidate manuscript" is one of the primary goals of the peer review method. In order to document the history of improvement during peer review, we often attempt to publish the "average marks (out of 10)" that an article receives at both the initial and final stages of peer review.

Thus, these transparent procedures (such as publishing review history files and scores of a specific manuscript) also provide readers with a clear understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of a published paper, increasing the likelihood that the research's findings will be used appropriately (and/or decreasing the likelihood that the findings will be misused). Therefore, in the long term, this open approach can be quite advantageous for the academic community.

We strongly advise against writers attempting to influence the review process by contacting the reviewer directly. Additionally, we strongly advise against the reviewers contacting the authors personally.

Reviewer Suggestion

The names, addresses, and email addresses of four possible reviewers must be submitted with the paper. Please adhere to these criteria when recommending peer reviewers to prevent any potential conflicts of interest. Reviewers are advised not to:

The editing staff alone has the authority to determine whether or not to use the recommended reviewers.

Plagiarism Policy

Plagiarism of any kind, including duplicate publication, is highly discouraged in this journal. Submissions of articles are regularly checked for the plagiarism. The goal of this publication is to publish unique, superior quality research papers. When a manuscript is submitted to this journal, it signifies that the study has not been published elsewhere or submitted for publication elsewhere.

When using any portion of a published document, whether in English or another language, authors should properly cite their sources or, if necessary, obtain permission from the original publisher or copyright holder, whichever is appropriate.

Important: Manuscripts that include plagiarism will not be accepted for publication. After an internal inquiry, any published paper that contains plagiarism will be retracted and a letter will be sent right away to all of the authors, their linked institutions, and the funding agency, if applicable.

As far as the journal's plagiarism is concerned, our policy is explained below:

When a writer tries to pass off someone else's work as their own, it is called plagiarism. In order to handle such occurrences, this publication also adopted the IEEE definition of plagiarism. "The reuse of someone else's prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source" is the definition of plagiarism.

When significant portions of material are cut and pasted, it is evident that plagiarism has taken place. This journal would not consider such articles for publication. Papers containing verified instances of plagiarism are promptly rejected.

However, small-scale copying that is not malicious is rather common, such as when a writer recycles portions of an introduction from a previous work.

Self-Plagiarism and Text Recycling

When an author reuses significant portions of their own published work without properly citing their sources, it's known as duplicate publication, or self-plagiarism. This can include "salami-slicing," in which authors add little quantities of fresh data to an earlier paper, or having the same paper published in several journals. Self-plagiarism, sometimes known as "text recycling," is a contemporary problem that is currently causing editors to debate it a lot.

There are differing views on the appropriate amount of text overlap with an author's prior works. Normally, we abide with the rules listed on the COPE website. This is a good policy that should be scrupulously adhered to by authors, editors, and reviewers (Reference: Text Recycling Guidelines: http://publicationethics.org/text-recycling-guidelines).

Handling Suspected Plagiarism

When 'suspected minor plagiarism' occurs, writers are approached to provide explanation. The final fate of the article is determined by reviewers and editors based on all of these reports. All of these reports are included in the paper's "publication history" in accordance with the Advanced OPEN peer review method in order to preserve openness in the event that the manuscript is ultimately accepted and published.

The journal editors evaluate each case on its own merits after learning about it from referees or from their own reading and knowledge of the literature.

The 'copy-paste' issue can be identified with the use of automated software. Every manuscript that is submitted is examined using a variety of databases, eTBLAST, plagiarism detection software, etc. Reviewers and editors also evaluate the case's scientific implications (also known as "suspected minor plagiarism").

Although plagiarism detection techniques are helpful, human judgment and discretion should still be employed to reach a final decision. As a result, editors evaluate suspected plagiarism situations on a "case-to-case basis." These situations, editors have the last say.

Procedure for Recognizing and Addressing Claims of Research Misconduct

In the case that a published or submitted paper contains significant evidence of research misconduct, the Editor/Journal will take action to ensure that the detected misconduct or misconducts are prevented. Authors are expected to report original research and give an accurate description of the work done. Falsifying results, purposefully manipulating citations, publishing duplicates, and recycling contents are examples of research misconduct in publishing.

If research misconduct is found in a published article, the editor will address the same in accordance with COPE's rules.

Research Misconduct Allegations (COPE)

Allegations of scientific misconduct, both before and after publication are taken very seriously by this journal. The Committee of Publication Ethics' (COPE) guidelines are thoroughly investigate and address any wrongdoing.

The research institution is responsible for the following in this regard:

The following are the duties of the editorial board, which is led by the editor-in-chief:

Publication Schedule

One of the chief criteria that have a direct impact on the journals' credibility are regularity and frequency. In this regard, the International Journal of Renewable Energy Exchange regularly publishes four (4) issues and one (1) volume annually, which are described as follows:

Issue Number Publication Period
Issue 1 January - March
Issue 2 April - June
Issue 3 July - September
Issue 4 October - December