- » Focus and Scope
- » Section Policies
- » Peer Review Process
- » Publication Frequency
- » Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy
- » Papers/ manuscript evaluation criteria
- » Processing Charges
- » Join the ASRJETS Journal as as Reviewer
- » Plagiarism Policy
- » Open Access statement
- » Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct
- » Conflict of interest Policy (COIP)
Focus and Scope
Journal's scope includes:
American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) is the International Scientific Research Journal that is intended to publish original research in all main branches of science (scientific disciplines) such as Social Sciences , Natural Sciences , Formal Sciences, and Applied science. The ASRJETS accept submissions in the following areas: (but not limited)anthropology, archaeology, communication, criminology, education, government, linguistics, international relations, political science, sociology, Earth science, Ecology, Oceanography, Meteorology, Life science, Human biology, Decision theory, Logic, Mathematics, Statistics, Systems theory, Theoretical computer science, Applied physics, Computer science, all Fields of engineering, Accounting, , Education, Economics, Medical Technology, Biology, Medicine, Management, History, Mineralogy, Civil Engineering, Marine Technology, Commerce, Chemical Engineering, Animal Sciences, Petroleum & Gas, Energy Resources, Agriculture, Medical Sciences, Machine Learning, Machinery, computer Science, Chemistry, Neural Networks, Physics, Social Science, Geology, Transportation, Waste Management, Control Engineering, Applied Mathematics, Oceanography, Biomedical Materials, Construction, Metallurgy, Neural Computing, Industrial Arts, IT, Astronology, Fire & Fire Prevention, Robotics Marine Sciences, Solid State Technology, Business Administration, Food &Food Industry, Atmospheric Sciences, Artificial Intelligence, Textile Industry & Fabrics, Education science, Physiology, Nano Science, Microbiology, Psychology, Statistics, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Genetics, Botany, Veterinary Sciences, Biotechnology, Biochemistry, Zoology, Oncology, Accounting, Entomology, Parasitology, Evolution, human behavior, Biophysics, Fisheries, Pharmacology, Geography, Cell Biology, Genomics, Plant Biology, Law, Religious Studies, Endocrinology, Dentistry, Infectious Diseases, Toxicology, Immunology, Teacher education, and Neuroscience.
|Open Submissions||Indexed||Peer Reviewed|
Peer Review Process
All research articles published in the American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) will undergo full peer review process. It should be clear for authors that the Editor In Chief is responsible for the final decision about the submitted papers; have the right to accept\reject any paper. The Editor In Chief will choose any option from the following to review the submitted papers:
A. send the paper to two reviewers, if the results were negative by one reviewer and positive by the other one; then the editor may send the paper for third reviewer or he take immediately the final decision by accepting\rejecting the paper. The Editor In Chief will ask the selected reviewers to present the results within 7 working days, if they were unable to complete the review within the agreed period then the editor have the right to resend the papers for new reviewers using the same procedure. If the Editor In Chief was not able to find suitable reviewers for certain papers then he have the right to accept\reject the paper.
B. sends the paper to a selected editorial board member(s).
C. the Editor In Chief himself evaluates the paper.
individual items (the author accepted paper) can be published by The American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS) as soon as they are ready, the author paper will be published immediately after its acceptance (usually less than 21 days), our online publishing system will be able to add it to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Policy
ASRJETS ethic statements are based on the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Duties of Editors
The editor of ASRJETS is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Duties of Authors
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention
Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that submitted work is original and has not been published elsewhere in any language, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
Applicable copyright laws and conventions should be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) should be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship of the Paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects
If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Papers/ manuscript evaluation criteria
Each submitted manuscript is evaluated on the following basis:
- The originality of its contribution.
- The soundness of its theory and methodology.
- The coherence of its analysis.
- The ability to communicate to readers (grammar and style).
- All research papers are reviewed by at least two suitably qualified experts.
- All publication decisions are made by the journals’ Editor on the basis of the reviews provided.
- Members of the international Editorial Boards assist in decision making on specific submissions.
- Normal turn-around time for evaluation of manuscripts is 21 days from the date of recipient.
- ASRJETS Journal have two peer review options to process the authors papers after submission:
- Ordinary peer review process: time is between 14 - 21 days. (The cost 105 USD), paid only if the paper is accepted).
- Fast track peer review process: the peer review results are guaranteed to be available within 3-5 days. (The cost 140 USD paid only if the paper is accepted).
- The mentioned fees are paid only if the author paper is accepted for publication.
- There is no limit to the number of authors for each research paper.
- Fee waiver requests must be directed to the Editor In Chief using the following email firstname.lastname@example.org . Fee waiver requests availability is related to the availability of research funds from the Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers (GSSRR).
- Different fee payment methods are available for authors to pay the publication fees; the details for the payment methods will be sent for authors directly if their paper is accepted by this journal for publication. The available payment methods are:
- Bank to Bank transfer.
- Western Union.
- Express money
Join the ASRJETS Journal as as Reviewer
invitation for the Potintial Reviewer to join the ASRJETS Journal:
ASRJETS welcomes reviewer who wish to join the journal community under the following two conditions:
- The reviewer must hold a PhD degree for at least two years.
- Should have at least 3 publications related to his declared reviewing interests (each reviewing subject chosen by the reviewer should be supported by 3 publications related to that subject).
Reviewers can get the following benefits:
- For each 7 papers reviewed by the Reviewer he can get One Free Publication of his articles or for any other article sponsored by him.
- For each 7 papers reviewed by the Reviewer he can get an E-Certificate of joining the ASRJETS Journal as a Reviewer.
- Possibility of joining the editorial board of the journal (this is normally for reviewers that works with the journal for at least 2 years).
Detecting Plagiarism is not an easy task, ideally it require the cooperation between (all) publishing houses around the world.
iThenticate is standalone web-based software created to detect Plagiarism; this software is developed and owned by iParadigms. It can be accessed with a username/password combination. Up to this moment; 5% from the articles submitted to the ASRJETS journal will be checked using the iThenticate plagiarism detection software (we plan to increase the percentage at the beginning of the next year). This does not mean that we accept Plagiarism in any way. Plagiarism if detected or reported at any stage will be investigated and will be treated based on the guidelines contained in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts that can be downloaded from the following link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).
The ASRJETS journal follows the guidelines contained in the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) flowcharts that can be downloaded from the following link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts). Kindly pay attention to the following charts within the COPE link:
What to do if you suspect plagiarism
- Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript [PDF, 80KB]
- Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript [PDF, 116KB]
What to do if you suspect redundant (duplicate) publication
- Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript [PDF, 60KB]
- Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript [PDF, 84KB]
Notifications regarding any plagiarism issue should be directed to the ASRJETS editor at email@example.com .
Open Access statement
This is an open access journal which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the BOAI definition of open access.
Process for identification of and dealing with allegations of research misconduct
The Global Society of Scientific Research and Researchers (GSSRR), the American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS), and the editors are committed to take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, including plagiarism, citation manipulation, and data falsification/fabrication, among others. The journal or its editors will not encourage such misconduct under any circumstances, or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place. In the event that the GSSRR or the editors are made aware of any allegation of research misconduct relating to a published article in this journal – we shall follow COPE's guidelines in dealing with allegations.
Conflict of interest Policy (COIP)
Conflict of interest (COI) exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests (competing interests) and his or her responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities such that a reasonable observer might wonder if the individual’s behavior or judgment was motivated by considerations of his or her competing interests.
Types of Competing Interests
1- Financial ties. This conflict is present when a participant in the publication process has received or expects to receive money (or other financial benefits such as patents or stocks), gifts, or services that may influence work related to a specific publication.
2- Academic commitments. Participants in the publications process may have strong beliefs (“intellectual passion”) that commit them to a particular explanation, method, or idea. They may, as a result, be biased in conducting research that tests the commitment or in reviewing the work of others that is in favor or at odds with their beliefs.
3- Personal relationships. Personal relationships with family, friends, enemies, competitors, or colleagues can pose COIs. For example, a reviewer may have difficulty providing an unbiased review of articles by investigators who have been working colleagues.
4- Political or religious beliefs. Strong commitment to a particular political view (e.g., political position, agenda, or party) or having a strong religious conviction may pose a COI for a given publication if those political or religious issues are affirmed or challenged in the publication.
5- Institutional affiliations. A COI exists when a participant in the publication process is directly affiliated with an institution that on the face of it may have a position or an interest in a publication.
Declaring and Managing COIs
COIs are ubiquitous and cannot be eliminated altogether. However, they can be managed constructively so that they make the least possible intrusion on journal content and credibility.
All declarations about COI should be requested in writing as a condition of reviewing a manuscript and asked in such a way that authors will have a high likelihood of reporting their COIs related to the manuscript.
The consequences for failing to declare COI.
Any COI will be treated based on flowcharts for the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE); those charts that can be downloaded from the following link (http://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts).
Which COIs will result in a manuscript not being considered further?
All types of COI mentioned in the previous text will results in stop processing and rejecting the manuscript until the COI is solved.
Responsibilities of Participants
All authors should report any COI related to their research to the editor.
All reviewers should report any COI related to their reviewing tasks to the editor.
Editors should not make any editorial decisions or be involved in the editorial process if they have or a close family member has a COI (financial or otherwise) in a particular manuscript submitted to their journal.