Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The Journal of Research on Engineering Structures and Materials (RESM) complies with the ethical rules in the editorial processes and publication of manuscripts. Similarity software is used to check plagiarism and manuscripts with inappropriate overlapping with other publications and/or containing other detected malpractices are not processed and immediately rejected.

Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines are part of the journal publication ethics practices and will be used to handle any related issues as the guiding documents. More information about these guidelines can be found at the COPE's website.

The attitude and rules of our journal followed in the editorial and publishing processes are given below for all involved parties (inline and addition to aforementioned COPE guidelines):

 

Responsibilities of Editors

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial board members cannot use the information about the submitted article for their personal advantage obtained due to their duties in the publication process. Editors may not use the research information or ideas in unpublished articles for their personal research purposes without the written permission of the authors. Editors should evade cases of real or perceived conflicts of interest. Editors cannot continue their editorial duties in situations where they have a conflict of interest with the author, company or institutions related to the assigned publication. In such cases, they inform the editor-in-chief and ensures that another editor is assigned to the publication.

Confidentiality

Editors and editorial staff cannot share any information about the articles in the publication process with anyone other than corresponding author, the editor-in-chief, potential reviewers, reviewers and other relevant journal personnel, as appropriate.

Fair play and editorial independence

Editors evaluate the submitted manuscripts solely on the basis of their scientific quality and the relevance to the journal’s scope. Editorial decisions are made regardless of the race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation of the authors not affected by the policies of other parties outside of the journal itself. The Editor-in-Chief has full authority over all editorial content of the journal and the scheduling of its publication.

Publication decisions

The editorial process for manuscript submissions involves a rigorous evaluation by a minimum of two expert reviewers in relevant fields, ensuring a comprehensive assessment. The editor-in-chief holds the authority to determine the inclusion of submitted articles in the editorial process for potential publication or rejection. This initial evaluation encompasses an assessment of the manuscript's validity, its significance to researchers and readers, reviewer feedback, compliance with current legal standards, avoidance of copyright infringement, and identification of potential plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet the requisite quality standards for inclusion in the editorial process are declined. The editor-in-chief may collaborate with other editors and reviewers for consultation during the preliminary evaluation. It is imperative to note that all submissions undergo a thorough editorial process, including the peer review stage, before any publication decisions are made.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors take responsive measures when ethical issues arise with regard to a submitted manuscript or published article. Any reported act of unethical publishing behavior is investigated. Where necessary, editors cooperate with other journal staff on investigations on unethical conduct.  In case of detection of unethical behavior related to published articles, a correction, retraction, statement of concern or other relevant note will be published in the journal.

 

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions

Reviewers, in scope of the peer-review process, assist editors in making editorial decisions and support authors in improving their manuscripts.

Promptness

Any reviewer who feel that they are inadequate in evaluating the relevant publication or realize that they cannot make the evaluation in a timely manner should immediately inform, the editor and withdraw from the evaluation process.

 

Confidentiality

All manuscripts sent to the reviewers should be treated as confidential documents and should not be shared or discussed with anyone other than those authorized by the editor-in-chief.

 

Standards of objectivity

The reviewer should evaluate the manuscript objectively. Personal criticism of the authors should be avoided. Peer-reviews should be presented clearly and with supportive arguments.

Proper Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers determine whether previous publications referenced in the article are appropriately cited. They ensure that observations and statements made in previous publications are accompanied by their respective references. Reviewers inform the editor about other publications within their knowledge that have a high similarity and overlap with the considered publication.

Disclosure and conflict of interest

Reviewers keeps the information about the submitted articles confidential and cannot use it for their personal benefit. Reviewers should not accept assignments in which they have conflicts of interest with the author, company or institutions related to the assigned publication. If they realize such cases after accepting the review invitation, they inform the editor and withdraw from the reviewship duty.

 

Responsibilities of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of the original research work should provide an accurate report of their work and an objective discussion of its scientific significance. The data on which the study is based should be included in the article accurately and completely. The information contained in the article should be sufficient to allow the work to be replicated by others. Submitting fraudulent or consciously erroneous statements is considered unethical conduct and is unacceptable. Review articles should be up-to-date, unbiased, inclusive and accurate.

 

Authorship of a manuscript

Authorship should enclose only to those who have contributed significantly to the conception, design, implementation and interpretation of the relevant study. Everyone who contributed significantly to the study should be included as co-authors. If others have participated in fundamental parts of the study, their name should be given in Acknowledgement section. The corresponding author makes sure that the authors of the article are given in accordance with the definitions given above, that all authors approve the final version of the article and that they agree on the submission of the article to the journal for publication.

Data access and retention

During the editorial process, the authors may be asked to present the raw data of the research given in the article together with the submitted article or to make these data available to the public. In any case, authors should maintain relevant data accessible for at least ten years after publication, to the extent permitted by the protection of the confidentiality of the participants and relevant property rights.

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Authors should only submit entirely original work and should properly cite previous studies they have used and referred. Parts of other papers should not be included in a manner violating associated similarity conditions.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication and licensing

In general, articles containing the results of the same research should not be published in different journals. Submitting the same article to more than one journal is ethically unacceptable. Additionally, manuscripts published elsewhere as a copyrighted material cannot be submitted to the journal. Also, submissions under review by the journal should not be presented to other publication means. If published, authors allow the utilize of the work under a CC-BY-NC license [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0] which allows others to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt the study.

Ethics committee approval (if necessary)
Ethics committee approval should be obtained for clinical and experimental studies on humans and animals that require an ethical committee decision. This approval must be specified and documented in the article.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the study contains chemicals, equipment or procedures that may be unusually harmful to humans or animals in its use, this should be clearly stated by the author.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should submit a declaration with the article specifying all conflicts of interest that may be inferred to affect the results or perception of their work. All financial funding for the study, if any, should be specified.

Fundamental errors in published works

If the author realizes that there is a significant error in his/her published work, he/she should immediately report this to the journal authorities and should cooperate with the editor in retracting the relevant article or correcting the error in form of an erratum.

Responsibilities of Publisher

In cases of any suspected ethical misconduct, deceitful publication or plagiarism; the publisher, will take any appropriate action to clarify the situation in collaboration with the editor-in-chief. If an unethical behavior is detected with regard to any published article, appropriate measures like prompt publication of an erratum or the complete retraction of the related article will be taken.

In journal publishing services and activities, the publisher does not discriminate based on sexual orientation, gender, color, national origin, race, religion, creed, disability, veteran status, marital status, career status or age.