Publication Ethics

1. Authorship and Author's Responsibilities.

   • Authors should not submit a manuscript previously published in an international/local/national journal. A manuscript should not be submitted in the same or different languages, simultaneously to more than one journal or book available through a library or by purchase;
   • Authors should not describe the same research or slightly different one as a submitted or published paper (by the same/different author);
   • In multi-author papers all authors should have made a significant intellectual contribution to the study. “Ghost”, “Guest”, and “Gift” authors are considered unacceptable;
   • All authors should take collective responsibility and agree on the content of the paper;
   • Authors should provide valid information about themselves. (e.g., valid emails);
   • If the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that should appropriately cited or quoted:
     • references must reflect a valid state of both the historical development of the subject and the current state of opinion in the field,
     • authors should avoid copying references from other sources if they have not read the cited work.
   • Authors should have all valid permissions for use of information obtained privately and copyrighted materials. (e.g., pictures, diagrams, numerical results);
   • Authors should declare all support and funding sources in an Acknowledgment and if the role of the research funder has been beyond providing funding that should also be described. (e.g., role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; writing of the report);
   • Authors should supply promptly any missing items or information requested by the editors;
   • Authors should avoid nominating peer reviewers who have a conflict of interest;
   • Authors should not make significant changes to their manuscript after acceptance without the approval of the journal;
   • Authors should notify immediately the journal if significant errors or academic misconduct are found after publication and collaborate with the editor so that an appropriate correction or retraction can be made.
2. Peer Review Procedure.
• The Editorial Board of the Journal is aware that peer view is the critical phase of the publishing process. All submitted papers are reviewed at least by two experts of which at least one is not part of the editorial staff;
• In special cases, authors are allowed to nominate two referees in the field (one of the referees must be from abroad);
• Reviewers should have sufficient subject expertise to evaluate the scientific and practical value of the paper;
• Reviewers are allowed to consult their colleagues about the paper, but are not allowed to pass on the paper to another referee without notifying the Editor in Chief.
• If a reviewer is unable to assess the paper, he/she should return or inform the Editor in Chief immediately. His/ Her suggestions for alternative referees would be considered.
• Editor in Chief may appoint new referees because of the reports written superficially without a clear explanation as to why the article should either be accepted or rejected;
• The average time for evaluation is about two months. However, authors should note that each submission is assessed on its individual merit and in certain circumstances estimating time may differ.
• Editorial Board attach high importance to reviewer reports. They should be provided timely and be constructive. These reports should contain concrete arguments referring to the paper which support the decision of the reviewer and not be written in harsh language with insulting expressions or personal attacks;
• Reviewers should disqualify themselves from reviewing in cases that they have a very similar manuscript submitted elsewhere in preparation, have conflict of interest with the authors and/or the research fund or they feel that they are unable to provide an honest and unbiased assessment for any reason;
• Reviewers should keep the submission and contents of manuscripts confidential, they should not contact the authors directly or anyone else about reviewing a manuscript without the knowledge and permission of the journal;
• Reviewers are not allowed to use author’s manuscript in their researches without permission from the author and should destroy copies of manuscripts after submitting their reviews;
• Reviewers should notify journals in case of any suspicion of misconduct such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, redundant or duplicate publication, and undeclared conflicts of interest.
• If all the reviewers’ reports are positive the paper will be accepted for publication. However, when at least one of the reports is negative, then the manuscript will be sent out to a different referee. If the report of this reviewer also is negative, then the paper will be rejected. In the case when the second report is positive, the manuscript will be sent to the Editor in Chief for ultimate decision;
3. Editorial Responsibilities.
   • Editor in Chief ensures that his/her behavior is transparent beyond reproach, treats all authors with fairness, courtesy, objectivity, honesty and avoids all discrimination on ethnic or geographical origin of the authors;
   • Editor in Chief ensures the appropriateness of language in both submitted manuscripts and also in peer review reports or correspondence and ensure that these documents do not contain anything that is defamatory, libelous or likely to confuse the authors;
   • Editor in Chief may reject a paper without further evaluation for publication if the paper does not abide journal’s policies or the subject matter of the paper is out of the scope of the journal;
   • Before making a decision about controversial papers or papers with nonstandard ideas, the Editor in Chief would confer with the Editorial Board members;
   • Editor in Chief maintains the confidentiality of all submitted papers and ensures that author’s unpublished materials in his/her research are not used without his/her permission;
   • Editor in Chief encourages correspondences and constructive criticism of the published work and expects to be notified if any possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, unethical research, biased reporting, authorship abuse, redundant or duplicate publication, and undeclared conflicts of interest are detected;
   • Editor in Chief investigates all suspected cases of misconduct and puts in place necessary procedures such as publishing appropriate correction notes, retraction or withdrawal of the paper;
   • Editor in Chief concurrently informs the author, reviewers, abstracting and indexing services and the readers of the publication about retraction or withdrawal of the publication from the journal;
   • Editor in Chief gives authors the option to nominate peer reviewers or to request that particular individuals do not peer review their paper. Editor in Chief has no obligation to accept the authors’ nominations and validates nominations carefully;
   • Editor in Chief monitors the performance of peer reviewers for quality and timeliness, ensures that they abide the policy of peer reviewers’ ethical responsibilities of the journal (See: 2.Peer Review Procedure )
   • Editor in Chief mediates all exchanges between authors and peer reviewers during the peer-review process. Editor in Chief may seek comments from additional peer reviewers to help them make their final decision;
   • Editor in Chief ensures timely publication and avoids unnecessary delays;
   • Editor in Chief may request more data or clarification from authors if they come across anything unclear or suspicious;
   • Editor in Chief and/or editorial team members exclude themselves from publication decisions when they are authors or have contributed to a manuscript;
   • Editor in Chief communicates to authors exactly what the decision is on their manuscript, the reasons for it. (If appropriate what conditions need to be met for the journal to consider the manuscript again)
   • Editor in Chief have complete right and authority to make the final decisions and to decide which of the submitted manuscripts should be published.
4. TWMS J. of Appl. & Eng. Math.’s Publishing Policies.
   • Papers published in TWMS J. of Appl. & Eng. Math. should have soundly reported and carefully executed contents and contain essential contributions to the subject area. Authors should use appropriate methods of data analysis and display. All mathematical proofs and calculations must be carried out correctly and carefully. If the author uses another author's algorithm or method, it must be clearly emphasized;
   • TWMS J. of Appl. & Eng. Math. publishes papers in a timely and efficient manner with dates of receipt and acceptance (order of publication is based on the submission dates);
   • The Journal is especially keen on cases of plagiarism, self-plagiarism and duplicate publication. Before the reviewing process, usually all manuscripts are submitted to plagiarism detection software packages;
   • JAEM investigates all cases suspected of errors, fraudulent data or plagiarism and if there is a clear evidence of misconduct; puts in place necessary procedures such as publishing appropriate correction notes, retraction or withdrawal of the paper.

On all other aspects of the monitoring publications ethics and malpractice the journal strictly adheres to the international standards developed by: http://publicationethics.org