Publication Policies and Ethical Guidelines
Concurrent Advances in Mechanical Engineering (CAME) follows the ethical policies during publication set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), available on its website and editorial board.
Guidelines for Authors
All authors are expected to adhere to the following guidelines when submitting manuscript to our journal:
- The article represents the authors own original work.
- The article is not being considered or reviewed by any other publication.
- The article has not been published elsewhere in the same or a similar form. This includes publication of an article in different languages and the reuse of substantial portions of articles without acknowledgement of prior publication.
- All authors are aware of and have consented to the submission and declared any potential conflict of interest – be it professional or financial – which could be held to arise with respect to the article.
- All authors fulfil the requirements for authorship.
- Authors must cite all relevant publications that have been used in or influenced the work, including their own previously published articles.
- Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion, should only be used and reported with written permission from the source and acknowledged as a personal communication.
- The article contains no libellous, defamatory or unlawful statements.
- When necessary, submit corrigenda in a timely and responsible fashion.
- Expect to sign a copyright assignment form on acceptance of their work, which will assume that the author is empowered to assign copyright to the publisher.
- Co-operate fully with the publication of errata and with the retraction of articles found to be unethical, misleading or damaging.
- If asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers, authors must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.
- How to handle authorship disputes: a COPE guide for new researchers
Guidelines for Reviewers
Taking different aspects into consideration peer reviewer will be selected. This may include expertise, affiliation, and experienced reviewers, reviewers suggested by the authors or editors. Peer review in all its forms plays an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The process depends, to a large extent on trust, and requires that everyone involved behaves responsibly and ethically. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part in the peer-review process, but too often come to the role without any guidance and unaware of their ethical obligations. COPE has produced some guidelines which set out the basic principles and standards to which all peer reviewers should adhere during the peer-review process in research publication. All reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines when reviewing the manuscript, which submitted to our journal:
- All the reviewers should be aware that the data of the assigned manuscript has to be maintained confidentially.
- Only accept invitations to review work that is relevant to their own expertise and speciality.
- Seek advice from the editor if anything is unclear at the time of invitation.
- Review submitted work in a responsible, impartial and timely manner.
- Report any suspected ethical misconduct as part of a thorough and honest review of the work.
- Avoid the use of unnecessarily inflammatory or offensive language in their appraisal of the work.
- If the article is appropriate it will be given approval to editor by the reviewer. In the case of rejection the reviewer need to give a clear explanation to the author about the reasons that intended him to reject the manuscript. He/her also need to explain what changes can be done in order to publish the article.
- Efficient and timely editorial processes are very important during the publication.
- Accept the commitment to review future versions of the work and provide follow up advice to the editor(s), if requested.
- Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.
- COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
Guidelines for Editors
Being an editor, he/she should carry out their responsibilities with much dedication to improve the quality of the journal. It is advisable to oversee the journal policies time to time and assisting the publisher in maintaining the journal quality towards serving the scientific community. Editors to be followed:
- To improve the ways of journal processes, the editor should actively seek the views of editorial board members, reviewers, authors.
- Encourage research into peer review, technological advances and reassess journal processes in the light of new discoveries.
- CAME welcomes their editor suggestions in providing appropriate resources, guidance from experts and training to perform the publisher role in a professional manner and improve the quality of the journal.
- Encourage initiatives designed to prevent research misconduct and educate researchers about publication ethics.
- Encourages submission of quality articles to the journal by personally recruiting authors, assisting them with outreach, and ensuring the marketing plan is executed.
- Ensures feedback provided to authors is constructive, fair, and timely.
- Should determine whether a submitted manuscript is appropriate for the journal.
- Article submitted for peer review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author identity and work.
- Recruit high profile reviewers using multiple sources, e.g., personal recommendations, Web databases, published choice review.
- Should monitor the process of peer review and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.
- Communicate with reviewers as regularly as possible, according to their availability and give them clear instructions in maintaining quality of the journal.
- Avoid conflicts of interest when making assignments. Check whether reviewer has history of conflict with author.
- Should encourage reviewers to comment on- ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
- The originality of article submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
- Ensure to rewrite content when required (Typographical errors, incorrect line or page breaks, Spelling errors, Errors in grammar and syntax, Errors in word usage, graphs, the styling of tables, and other art, including their labels, captions, and text mentions, Ambiguous vocabulary and syntax).
- Editors can comment on any issues related to the scientific content of the manuscript.
- Should communicate directly with the author and the review team.
- Recommend acceptance or rejection of the articles considered for publication to the journal Editor.
- Should be able to resolve any conflicts.
- Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct
- Text recycling guidelines for editors
- A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors
- Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations
About Peer-Review process
CAME aims at rapid publication of high quality research while maintaining rigorous but sympathetic peer review process. Manuscripts (other than those that are of insufficient quality or unlikely to be competitive enough for publication) will be peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the fields, and a decision is returned to the authors within weeks. If due to special circumstance, the review process takes more time, authors will be informed by email.
The following is the editorial workflow that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process. The entire editorial workflow is performed using the online Manuscript Tracking System. Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, the manuscript is checked by the journal’s editorial office to ensure that it is suitable to go through the normal peer review process. Once this is done, the manuscript is sent to an appropriate Editor based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the Editors. All manuscripts shall be handled by an Editor who is neither from the same institute as any of the manuscript’s authors, nor from the same country as any of the manuscript’s authors, and has not co-authored any papers with any of the manuscript’s authors in the past three years. If the Editor finds that the manuscript may not be of adequate quality to go through the normal peer review process, or that the subject of the manuscript may not be appropriate for the journal’s scope, the manuscript shall be rejected with no further processing. If the Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of adequate quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they should assign the manuscript to a number of external reviewers for peer-review. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor:
- Publish Unaltered
- Consider after Minor Changes
- Consider after Major Changes
- Reject: Manuscript is flawed or not sufficiently novel
When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the Editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:
- Publish Unaltered
- Consider after Minor Changes
- Consider after Major Changes
If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation will be communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the Editor can then make an editorial recommendation which can be “Publish Unaltered,” “Consider after Minor Changes,” or “Reject.”
If the Editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection will be immediate. Also, if the majority of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection will be immediate.
The editorial workflow gives the Editors the authority to reject any manuscript because of inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results. The Editor cannot assign himself/herself as an external reviewer of the manuscript. This is to ensure a high-quality, fair, and unbiased peer-review process of every manuscript submitted to the journal, since any manuscript must be recommended by one or more (usually two or more) external reviewers along with the Editor in charge of the manuscript in order for it to be accepted for publication in the journal.
The name of the Editor recommending the manuscript for publication is published with the manuscript to indicate and acknowledge their invaluable contribution to the peer-review process and the indispensability of their contributions to the running of the journals.
The peer-review process is single blinded; that is, the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscripts are, but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are. Every journal published by DJ publications has an acknowledgment page for the researchers who have performed the peer-review process for one or more of the journal manuscripts in the past year. Without the significant contributions made by these researchers, the publication of the journal would not be possible.
Confidentiality is highly maintained by CAME Editors about the submitted manuscript details and do not comment out to any other organizations when the manuscript is under the process of review or if it is rejected. Journal editors may speak out on the published articles but their comments are restricted to the content and the evaluation process.
The attempt made by an author to use/pass some ones work as his/her own. Self-plagiarism is when author uses some parts of his/her research work without giving exact references. This can lead to the publication of the research work for twice in different journals. It generally occurs when large data is being copy pasted from other sources. Such type of manuscripts cannot be considered for publication in POMES. Submitted articles will be checked using duplication-checking CrossCheck software powered by iThenticate. By submitting your manuscript to CAME you are agreeing to any necessary originality checks your manuscript will have to undergo during the peer-review and editing processes.
There is no universally agreed definition of authorship. As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study. The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual will not be credited with authorship. All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this may be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions. All authors should have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted.
Changes to Authorship
This policy is concerned with the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship of accepted manuscripts. Before the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue, requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Journal Manager from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include: (a) the reason for addition or removal, or the rearrangement of the author names and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Journal Manager to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Note that: (1) the Journal Managers will inform the Journal Editors about any such requests and (2) publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is suspended until authorship has been agreed.
After the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue, any requests to add, delete, or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue will follow the same policies as noted above and result in a corrigendum.
Corrected proofs must be returned to the publisher within two to three days of receipt. The publisher will do everything possible to ensure prompt publication. It will therefore be appreciated if the manuscripts and figures conform from the outset to the style of the journal.
Open Access authors retain the copyrights of their papers, and all open access articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided that the original work is properly cited.
A competing interest exists when professional judgment concerning the validity of research is influenced by a secondary interest such as financial gain. We require that our authors reveal any possible conflict of interests in their submitted manuscripts. If there is no conflict of interests, authors should state that The author(s) declare(s) that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
AFTER ACCEPTANCE USE OF THE DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER
The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) must be used to cite and link to electronic documents. The DOI consists of a unique alpha-numeric character string which is assigned to a document by the publisher upon the initial electronic publication. The assigned DOI never changes
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUERIES, PLEASE CONTACT US AT THE MAIL ID: