Editorial practices and Ethic

The journal EASI: Engineering and Applied Science in Industry, takes as a reference the basic policies established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available at https://publicationethics.org/core-practices  

 

Allegations of misconduct

All allegations addressed to authors should be sent to the Editor in Chief. 

To determine whether the allegation is valid, the Editor will convene a special meeting of the Editorial executive committee (if this cannot be done at a regular meeting, which is held only every two years). 

The complainant must send an e-mail where the misconduct is determined with the respective evidence. In the case of a complaint for plagiarism within an article, the part of the text should be highlighted and the reference to the original articles should be attached. 

The Editor will contact the Author(s) to inform about the complaint (without mentioning the complainant) and ask for explanations with evidence.

If the Editor and the Committee decide to validate the accusation either because the evidence sent by the complainant is correct or, the author(s) do not agree to be in contact with the Editor or to send evidence, the article will be definitively withdrawn. 

Finally, the complainant will be contacted to report the outcome of the investigation and the complaint will be closed.

 

Authorship and contribution

The regular number of authors submitting the article should be less than four (4), and the authorship order and contribution must be declared in the Author rights statement. The established author order is final. Any alterations to the author list require unanimous consent from all original authors and must be formally notified to the Editor, via e-mail, before the peer review is completed (within approximately 5 weeks).

In case of multiple authors, they should determine the right order list before submitting the manuscript.

Artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be considered an author of any scientific article, in the event that the author(s) make use of artificial intelligence, they are responsible for the integrity of the content, and it must be reported when submitting the article for review, using the 'declaration of responsibility and acceptance of copyright' format.

 

Conflicts of Interest

EASI defines a conflict of interest as the potential relationship among authors, reviewers, Editors, publishers, or members of the Editorial Executive Committee that may inappropriately influence their judgment in peer review, Editorial decision-making, or publication of an article. 

The corresponding author should disclose in writing any conflict of interest that may arise to the Editor in Chief when the manuscript is submitted for review, using the 'declaration of responsibility and acceptance of copyright' format. The Editor must evaluate the request and decide whether a conflict of interest exists. The decision made by the Editor will be sent by e-mail to the author.

Reviewers must also inform if a conflict of interest exists before reviewing the manuscript. In the event of a conflict of interest, the reviewer must inform the Editor in Chief to dismiss this review.

Some examples of conflicts of interest between the author and the reviewer may be:

  • Personal or family relationship
  • Previous professional or collaborative relationship
  • Sponsorship or funding
  • Being employed at the same institution

In a double-blind review, the Editor initiates the reviewing process without revealing the author´'s identity. Similarly, reviewers also remain anonymous to the authors.

 

Data and reproducibility

Authors must share their underlying data under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license as per journal policy.

Authors must not fabricate data or falsify results reported in the manuscript. In addition, they must provide full details of the methods and procedures used to replicate the results accurately. Data sets may be peer-reviewed along with the article to ensure the accuracy and validity of the results.

Authors should ensure the accuracy and completeness of the data presented and correct any errors before the final manuscript is published. In the event that authors find any errors after their article is published, they should notify the Editor in chief immediately, via e-mail, to proceed with the process of correcting or retracting the error.

 

Ethical supervision

To be published in the EASI journal, it must be original research and a relevant topic in industrial applications of interest defined in our scope. Originality refers to the fact that the article must not have been previously published or submitted for consideration by any other journal.

The journal does not charge submission or publication fees to the author(s). Authors must declare any financial, professional, or personal conflicts of interest that may influence the research or results presented in the article.

Authors working with data from external participants must provide evidence of having obtained adequate informed consent before conducting the research. In the case of studies involving living beings, authors must demonstrate that proper ethical protocols have been followed and that any unnecessary suffering has been minimized.

Before the corresponding author submits the manuscript, all authors must agree to the publication ethics of the EASI journal.

The journal does not charge authors any submission or publication fees.

 

Intellectual property 

EASI is an open-access journal, which refers to a publishing model in which scientific articles are freely and openly accessible online to anyone interested in reading them, without the need to pay for access.

By publishing, authors grant a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, permitting others to copy and distribute the article, but prohibiting commercial use and requiring attribution.

Users don’t need to register to access the published content.

Declaration of previously published material

The author(s) of the manuscript must declare that a percentage of the content that has been previously published, and provide relevant details about the prior publication material, including:

  • Title: [Title of the previously published work]
  • Publication: [Name of the journal, book, or other publication]
  • Year: [Year of publication]
  • DOI or other identifier: [DOI or other unique identifier for the previously published work]
  • URL: [URL where the original copyrights can be revised]

The percentage of previously published material should be accurately stated in the Author rights statement, and must not exceed 50%. The Editor-in-Chief will review the author's rights and assess the article's contribution to the remaining content. It is essential that the article's original content and methodology comprise at least 50% of the total submission.

Journal management

The Editor in Chief is in charge of the operations of the EASI journal. The Editor in Chief is also in charge of recruiting and accepting Reviewers, and communicating with authors. Decisions are made by the Editor in Chief and guided by the Editorial Executive Committee at regular meetings and, if necessary, at special meetings. The journal maintains a website accessible to all users to view and download any article published by the journal.

 

Peer review

EASI follows a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both, Authors and Reviewers, remain anonymous to each other. For the selection of Reviewers, the Editor in Chief receives the application and decides whether or not to accept it. All modifications to committee lists should be communicated to the Editorial Executive Committee at the forthcoming regular meeting.

Additional to filiations, manuscripts should not include information regarding personal issues, personalized acknowledgements, contact information, watermarks, or any data that could reveal the identity of the author(s). The double-blind review must ensure that the article is evaluated impartially and based solely on its scientific merit.

The author should send the manuscript to the Editor in Chief for initial comments, the estimated time for this process is two (2) weeks. The manuscript is then sent for review. At least two (2) of the three (3) required reviews (including the Editor's) must recommend publication. Reviewers have less than three (3) weeks to complete their evaluations.

Reviewers will categorize submissions as follows:

  • Accepted
  • Accepted with minor revisions
  • Accepted with major revisions
  • Rejected

The Editor in Chief is responsible for notifying the corresponding author about the modifications to be made. The Author(s) should not take more than two (2) weeks to adapt the modifications and send the revised manuscript.

The Editor reviews the revised manuscript and the response letter. If any comment remains unaddressed or is disputed by the Author, the Editor may consult the respective Reviewer within a one-week timeframe. If the author does not comply with the observations, the article is discarded and the Editor in chief must send the final opinion to the correspondence Editor.

 

Post-publication discussions and corrections

Authors are required to notify the Editor-in-Chief if they identify errors or inaccuracies in the published article. The journal encourages readers to provide constructive comments on published articles, which can be submitted through the online comment system below each article. Authors have the opportunity to respond to readers' comments and criticisms.

In cases of significant corrections to a published article, the article may be submitted for additional peer review to verify the accuracy of the corrections and the validity of the corrected content.

 

Errata statement

We are committed to editorial quality. We will publish errata to correct any errors in our publications. In rare cases, we may retract articles. Our goal is to maintain the highest standards of research.

 

Complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals that are directly related to the final opinion on the article to be published should be submitted to the Editor in chief, who is in charge of receiving them by means of an e-mail sent by the corresponding author. 

The steps that authors should follow to submit their complaints or appeals are:

  • Explain the reason for their disagreement with the final opinion.
  • Provide the corresponding evidence with which you think an error was made in the final decision.
  • Indicate if you consider that there is a conflict of interest with the respective evidence.

The Editor in Chief will be in charge of recruiting evidences to present to the Editorial Executive Committee in an extraordinary meeting, in the shortest possible time.

After the evidence is presented, the Editorial Executive Committee will make a final decision, which will be documented and the case will be archived. The Editor in Chief will contact the corresponding author to inform about the decision, via e-mail.