ETHICS & MALPRACTICE

IJEEAS Publication Ethics

IJEEAS is committed to ensuring the publication process follows specific academic ethics. Hence, Authors, Reviewers, and Editors are required to conform to the ethical standards of publication.

 

DUTIES OF EDITOR

1.0 Publication decisions

  • IJEEAS editor is responsible to decide on the selection of journal to be published.
  • Editor is bind by the policies, legal requirements, libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism of this journal.
  • Editor decision maybe the outcome of discussion with reviewer and other editor.

2.0 Fair play

  • Manuscript evaluation is done by disregarding race, gender, religious belief, ethnic region, citizenship or pollical view of authors.

3.0 Role of Editor in Peer Review Process

  • Editor will oversee peer review process by at least two external reviewers, ensure fairness, impartiality, timeliness, selecting reviewer with appropriate expertise in related fields.
  • Editor must follow established protocols to prevent selection of deceitful reviewers to avoid conflict of interest and potential bias.

4.0 Confidentiality

  • The editorial staff must not disclose any information of submitted manuscript to other than corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and publisher.

5.0 Disclosure and conflicts of interest

  • Unpublished materials disclosed in submitted manuscript must not be used in editor's own research without the consent of the author.

 

DUTIES OF REVIEWERS

1.0 Contribution to Editorial Decisions

  • Peer review helps the editor make editorial decisions and, through communication with the author, can also assist in improving the paper

2.0 Promptness

  • Any referee who feels unqualified to review the research in a manuscript or knows that they cannot complete the review promptly should inform the editor and excuse themselves from the review process.

3.0 Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential. They should not be shown to or discussed with others unless authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of Objectivity
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively, without personal criticism of the author. Referees should clearly articulate their views and provide supporting arguments

4.0 Acknowledgement of Sources

  • Reviewers should identify any relevant published work that the authors have not cited. Any claim that an observation, derivation, or argument has been previously reported should be supported by the appropriate citation. Additionally, reviewers should inform the editor of any substantial similarities or overlaps between the manuscript and other published papers they are aware of

5.0 Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

  • Information or ideas gained through peer review must remain confidential and not be used for personal gain. Reviewers should not evaluate manuscripts if they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers

 

DUTIES OF AUTHORS

1.0 Reporting Standards

  • Authors are responsible for presenting an accurate account of the research conducted. The data, methodology, and conclusions should be accurately presented, allowing readers to understand the full scope of the work.
  • There should be sufficient detail provided so that other researchers can replicate the study.
  • Fraudulent or deliberately inaccurate statements, including the manipulation of data or results, constitute unethical behavior and are strictly prohibited.

2.0 Data Access and Retention

  • Authors should provide raw data for editorial review when requested and, where feasible, ensure public access to the data. Authors must retain this data for a reasonable time after publication.

3.0 Originality and Plagiarism

  • Authors must ensure that the work they submit is entirely original. Any use of previously published work or the ideas and words of other authors must be properly cited.
  • Failure to do so is considered plagiarism, a serious violation of ethical standards.

4.0 Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

  • Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal at the same time.
  • Authors should not publish the same research in multiple journals or conferences, unless a clear justification is provided and appropriate permissions are obtained.

5.0 Acknowledgement of Sources

  • All references must be cited appropriately, including both direct quotations and ideas that have shaped the research.

6.0 Authorship of the Paper

  • Authorship should be limited to those who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study.
  • All contributors should be listed as co-authors or acknowledged as contributors, and all co-authors must approve the final version of the paper and agree to its submission.

7.0 Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

  • If the research involves the use of hazardous chemicals, dangerous procedures, or special equipment, authors must clearly identify these risks in the manuscript.
  • If the research involves human participants or animals, it must comply with ethical guidelines.
  • The potential risks to subjects must be clearly stated, and appropriate safety protocols must be followed.

8.0 Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

  • Authors must disclose any financial or substantive conflicts of interest that could be seen as influencing the research, and all sources of financial support should be acknowledged.

9.0 Fundamental Errors in Published Works

  • If an author discovers a significant error in their published work, they must promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate to retract or correct the paper.

 

DUTIES OF PUBLISHER

1.0 Confronting Unethical Publishing Practices

  • If there is suspected or confirmed scientific misconduct, fraudulent publications, or plagiarism, the publisher will work with the editors to take appropriate actions. These actions might include promptly publishing an erratum, issuing a clarification, or, in the most serious cases, retracting the publication. The publisher and editors are dedicated to identifying and preventing the publication of research involving misconduct. They are committed to ensuring that such unethical practices are neither encouraged nor knowingly permitted under any circumstances.

2.0 Guaranteeing Access to Journal Content

  • The publisher is dedicated to ensuring the long-term availability and preservation of academic research. We achieve this by partnering with various organizations and maintaining our own digital archive.

 

MANUSCRIPT WITHDRAWAL, RETRACTION AND CORRECTION

1.0 Manuscript Withdrawal

  • Articles in Press, or accepted articles in draft form that have not yet been finalized for publication, are covered by this policy. These articles could be removed for a variety of reasons, like typos, unintentional repetition, breaking the rules (like submitting the same work more than once or plagiarizing it), or faults in editing and production.

2.0 Manuscript Retraction

  • Even though they are uncommon, retractions are a significant action done by writers or journal editors, frequently in response to academic advice. These might be required because of serious mistakes that have an impact on the article's conclusions, pervasive problems that are impossible to fix, or transgressions of journal guidelines like plagiarism or data manipulation. Retraction considerations encompass untrustworthy results, plagiarism, unapproved data release, copyright infringement, unethical conduct, corrupted peer review, and conflicting interests. Penerbit Universiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka follows the recommended protocols for retractions, which include watermarking the PDF, attaching a retraction note to the article, posting a notice of retractions in a later edition, and referring to the original article online.

3.0 Manuscript Correction

  • An article's inaccuracies or omissions can be fixed via a corrigendum while maintaining the article's integrity and conclusions. The Corrigendum is the responsibility of the authors and needs approval from each co-author.

 

Peer Review Process

Publication is twice a year and all submissions will be peer-reviewed by the local and international experts in each field. Publication of the selected manuscripts is free of charge (FOC) with no article processing/submission charges. The articles published by this journal are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. IJEEAS is planning to have its publication indexed in the highly reputable indexing entities in the near future.

In order to confirm the validity of the work reported, the article is reviewed by at least two reviewers who are chosen from our panel of experts in their respective fields. In case of conflicting review between two reviewers, the third reviewer will be assigned to conclude the review process. The review process uses double-blind review in which the identity of both authors and reviewers are concealed. IJEEAS utilizes Open Journal System (OJS) for paper submission and for tracking the progress of a submitted article.

The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation regarding the publication of the article based on the following categories:

  • Accept submission: The article is accepted for publication by the IJEEAS. Minimal revisions are required by the authors to ensure that the article is ready for publication.
  • Revisions required: The article is accepted for publication by the IJEEAS, but the authors must first address several issues regarding its content and / or structure before it is ready for publication.
  • Resubmit for review: The article needs substantial revision of its content and / or its structure and the article cannot be accepted for publication presently. However, because the article shows promise, the authors should revise the entry and then resubmit it to the IJEEAS for reconsideration.*
  • Decline submission: The article is not accepted for publication. The article’s purpose, content, and/ or use of research are not appropriate for the IJEEAS.

The reviewers’ decision, along with their recommendations and reports, will be forwarded to the authors as quickly as possible.