PUBLICATION ETHICS & MALPRACTICE STATEMENT
Engineering Spectrum is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all necessary measures to prevent any form of publication malpractice. This statement outlines the ethical standards that all parties involved in the publishing process, including authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher, are expected to adhere to.
This statement is based on the publication ethics guidelines published by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ). It is our responsibility to publish original work that adds value to the intellectual community in the best possible form and to the highest possible standards. We hold our reviewers and authors to the same standards. Honesty, originality, and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity, and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are essential to achieving our goals.
Engineering Spectrum is committed to following best practices on ethical matters, errors, and retractions, and to providing legal review if necessary. In case of any conflict, COPE best practice guidelines are taken into account.
If research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment that present any unusual hazards, the authors are required to clearly identify these in the manuscript and to comply with ethical standards for research involving animals and human subjects. Where necessary, authors must provide formal ethical clearance from the relevant ethics committee, association, or legal authority.
If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, the authors must provide a clear justification for why such information should be kept secure or not disclosed.
Engineering Spectrum is committed to safeguarding intellectual property. It is the responsibility of authors, editors, and reviewers to ensure that these principles are respected.
Authors certify that the submitted manuscript (and any supporting items) is their own intellectual property and that copyright has not been transferred to others. They confirm that the manuscript contains no plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, or manipulated citations, and that it conforms to the authorship policies set out below. Authors also confirm that they have obtained permission from copyright holders to reproduce any copyrighted tables, figures, data, text, etc.
All manuscripts, revisions, drafts, and galleys remain the intellectual property of the author(s). Copyright is retained by the author(s), who maintain the full right to modify, reshare, repost, or archive any version of their work.
Authors agree to keep all communications, comments, and reports between authors and reviewers or editors confidential. All review comments and reports remain the intellectual property of the reviewer or editor. Similarly, reviewers and editors agree to keep all manuscripts, revisions, drafts, and all communications, comments, or reports between authors and reviewers or editors confidential.
The Editor-in-Chief and section editors of the journal are responsible for determining which manuscripts submitted to the journal should be published. In this process, authors are not discriminated against on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or citizenship. Decisions to accept, revise, or reject a manuscript are based on its importance, originality, clarity, and the relevance of the study to the journal’s scope.
The Editor-in-Chief and section editors are responsible for ensuring that all information regarding a submitted manuscript is kept confidential and disclosed only to the corresponding author, reviewers/potential reviewers, and publishing staff as appropriate. During the review process, editors must guarantee the confidentiality of all material submitted by authors.
Editors will not use any unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their own research purposes without the authors’ explicit written consent. Information or ideas obtained through handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
If an editor has a conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscript, they will recuse themselves from handling it and will ask another member of the editorial board to manage the process.
All manuscripts received by the journal are first checked by the Editor to determine whether they have been prepared properly and comply with the journal’s ethical policies. Manuscripts that do not comply with the ethical rules or that do not meet the journal’s standards may be rejected by the Editor-in-Chief before peer review. Manuscripts that are not properly prepared may be returned to the authors for correction and resubmission.
The Editor-in-Chief may consult associate editors to determine whether the article fits within the scope of the journal and is scientifically appropriate. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable may be rejected without external review. For manuscripts that meet the required criteria, the peer review evaluation process is initiated by the Editor-in-Chief or by assistant editors delegated by the Editor-in-Chief.
For peer review, each article is assigned to at least two independent experts. Single-blind review is applied: the identities of the authors are known to the reviewers, while reviewer identities remain confidential. If the reviewer reports do not converge, the editor may send the article to additional reviewers.
Assistant editors, editorial board members, and guest editors with relevant expertise may serve as reviewers. Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may also be considered. Reviewers must not have co-published with any of the authors in the past three years and must not be employed at, or actively collaborating with, any institution of the co-authors of the submitted article.
For detailed information, authors and reviewers may consult the journal’s Editorial Procedures and Peer Review Process page.
In the event of an ethical complaint regarding a submitted manuscript or published article, editors and the publisher must take prompt and proportionate action. All reported instances of unethical publishing behaviour will be investigated, regardless of the time elapsed since publication.
Engineering Spectrum will apply COPE’s best practice guidelines to ensure that all complaints are handled appropriately.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All individuals who have made a meaningful contribution should be listed as co-authors. Others who contributed to specific aspects of the research should be acknowledged or listed as contributors.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Engineering Spectrum accepts authorship as declared on the title page at submission. It is the responsibility of the authors to submit the final version of the full author list.
Any request for changes to authorship after submission (e.g. removal/addition of authors, change in order) is subject to editorial approval. The Editor-in-Chief will investigate such cases and act in accordance with COPE flowcharts.
Requests for authorship changes must be submitted in writing (a signed letter) to the Editor. The letter should be signed by all authors, confirming their agreement with the proposed change.
No changes to authorship can be made after an article has been accepted for publication or published. All requests must be resolved before acceptance and publication.
Authors are responsible for the content, language, and originality of the manuscripts they submit. They must ensure that the work is entirely original, and where the work and/or words of others are used, these must be appropriately cited or quoted.
Plagiarism takes many forms, including:
Presenting someone else’s article as one’s own
Copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper without attribution
Claiming results from research conducted by others
Plagiarism in any form constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Before a manuscript is sent to reviewers, it is checked for similarity using plagiarism detection tools.
Plagiarism is not tolerated in Engineering Spectrum. This includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source—even from one’s own previous publications—without proper citation.
Any reused text must appear in quotation marks or be clearly offset and cited appropriately. If a study’s design, or the structure or language of a manuscript, is inspired by previous works, those works must be explicitly cited.
All submissions are checked for plagiarism before peer review using industry-standard software (e.g. iThenticate). For details, please refer to the journal’s Plagiarism Policy page.
All funding sources for the research reported in the manuscript must be thoroughly acknowledged at the end of the manuscript, before the references.
All authors must disclose in their manuscript any financial or personal relationships with individuals or organisations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing the content of their work.
All sources of financial support for the research and/or preparation of the article must be disclosed, as must the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in:
Study design
Data collection, analysis, and interpretation
Writing of the manuscript
Decision to submit the article for publication
If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, this must be clearly stated. Authors must declare any competing interests in the manuscript.
Authors should present an accurate description of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data must be represented accurately in the manuscript.
A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Misleading or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Review articles and professional publications should also be accurate, original, and objective. Editorial or opinion pieces must be clearly identified as such.
Authors are responsible for ensuring that they properly acknowledge the work of others and cite publications that have significantly influenced the reported work.
Information obtained in confidence (e.g. in peer review or grant evaluation) must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Similarly, information obtained while providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or reviewing grant applications, must not be used without explicit written permission from the authors of the relevant work.
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their study for editorial review and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.
Submitted manuscripts must not be under consideration by any other journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour.
Authors must also ensure that the work has not been previously published elsewhere.
If an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate in retracting or correcting the article.
If the work involves chemicals, procedures, or equipment that present unusual hazards, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript.
If the work involves animal or human subjects, the authors must ensure that the manuscript includes a statement confirming that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines, and that these procedures were approved by the appropriate ethics committee(s).
For research involving human subjects, the manuscript must confirm that informed consent was obtained and that privacy rights have been respected at all times.
The work must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki (World Medical Association) for experiments involving humans.
Engineering Spectrum has an obligation to maintain transparent policies for peer review, and reviewers have an obligation to conduct reviews ethically and responsibly. The peer review process depends on trust and voluntary participation by the academic community; reviewers play a central role and must act with integrity.
Open communication between the journal and reviewers is essential to facilitate consistent, fair, and timely reviews. Reviewers who are new to peer review are strongly encouraged to consult COPE’s ethics guidance on peer review.
Reviewers must declare all potential competing or conflicting interests. If unsure whether a potential conflict may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review, they should discuss it with the journal.
Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature. Reviewers should decline to review if:
They work at the same institution as any of the authors
They have, within the past three years, been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or co-grantee with any of the authors
Reviewers should not accept a manuscript solely to gain sight of it without the intention of submitting a review. They should also not agree to review a manuscript that is substantially similar to one they have prepared or reviewed for another journal.
Reviewers should respond to review invitations within a reasonable period, even if they are unable to undertake the review.
They should accept a review assignment only if they can complete it within the proposed or mutually agreed timeframe. If circumstances change, reviewers must inform the journal immediately and, if relevant, may suggest alternative reviewers based on expertise (without personal bias or desired outcomes).
Reviewers are key contributors to the quality of Engineering Spectrum. The editor expects a fair, honest, and unbiased assessment of the manuscript’s strengths and weaknesses.
The Engineering Spectrum manuscript evaluation form allows reviewers to provide feedback to authors and confidential comments to the editor. The journal also asks reviewers to recommend one of the following:
Acceptance
Minor revision
Major revision
Rejection
Any recommendation must be consistent with the comments in the review. If a reviewer has not evaluated all aspects of the manuscript, they should clearly state which parts have been reviewed.
Comments and suggestions to the editor should be consistent with the report to the authors. Most feedback should appear in the report visible to authors. Confidential comments to the editor must not contain defamatory or unfounded accusations, since the authors will not see them.
The editors of Engineering Spectrum reserve the right to disregard inconsistent, contradictory, or overly subjective reports and may invite additional reviewers where necessary.
Reviewers who feel unqualified to evaluate a manuscript must promptly notify the editor and decline the review. Reviewers must prepare the report themselves and treat all manuscripts as confidential documents.
Engineering Spectrum does not permit reviewers to share manuscripts with others who are not formally involved in the review process.
Reviewers must not:
Make disparaging or unjustified criticisms of competitors’ work mentioned in the manuscript
Suggest citation of their own (or an associate’s) work solely to increase citation counts or visibility
Reviewers must not deliberately delay the review process or request unnecessary additional information. If an editor chooses to review a manuscript themselves (e.g. due to lack of reviewers), this must be done transparently and not under the guise of an anonymous reviewer.
If reviewers or readers become aware of possible irregularities in research or publication ethics, they should report them to the Editor-in-Chief of Engineering Spectrum.
Concerns may include:
Suspected misconduct in the conduct, reporting, or submission of research
Notable similarities between the manuscript and another submission or published article
Concerns should be reported directly to the editor, without independent investigation by the reviewer. It is acceptable to cooperate with the journal in a confidential manner, but further investigation should only be undertaken at the journal’s request.
Engineering Spectrum is dedicated to fostering a transparent and collaborative research environment. Our goals are to:
Accelerate the discovery of research findings
Enhance reproducibility
Ensure the integrity of data, methods, and reporting
While data sharing is not mandatory, authors are strongly encouraged to share their research data, including (but not limited to) raw data, processed data, software, algorithms, protocols, methods, and materials.
Authors are encouraged to:
Deposit their data in a relevant public data repository
Include a data availability statement in the manuscript, with links to the data where possible
If data cannot be shared, the statement should explain why. Shared data should be appropriately cited in the manuscript.
Complaints regarding the journal’s processes should be directed to the Editor-in-Chief (e.g. Dr. Alper Calam, acalam@gazi.edu.tr) or the journal secretariat (e.g. engineering@sciperspective.com). Complainants should provide as much detail as possible so that the matter can be addressed promptly.
Engineering Spectrum has clear and transparent procedures for handling complaints against the journal, its editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. Complaints are forwarded to the relevant party for resolution.
The scope of complaints includes, but is not limited to:
Editorial process concerns
Allegations of citation manipulation
Allegations of unfair editor/reviewer practices
Concerns about the integrity of peer review
All complaints are handled in accordance with COPE’s best practice guidelines.
Research misconduct includes fabrication, falsification, manipulation of citations, or plagiarism in the conduct, review, or reporting of research and in the writing of articles.
If authors are found to have engaged in research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles in scientific journals, editors are responsible for preserving the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record.
In cases of suspected misconduct, the Editors and Editorial Board will follow COPE’s best practices to investigate and resolve the issue fairly. This may include:
An internal investigation of the allegation
Rejection of the manuscript if misconduct is found prior to publication
Retraction of the article if misconduct is found post-publication
The first step is to assess the validity of the allegation and determine whether it falls within the definition of research misconduct. This includes evaluating any conflicts of interest of the complainant(s).
If misconduct or serious irregularities may have occurred, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who is asked to respond on behalf of all co-authors. Further expert review (e.g. statistical review) may be requested.
If it appears unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications or additional analyses may be requested and published in the form of letters to the editor and/or corrections.
By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary action, Engineering Spectrum fulfils its responsibility to ensure the validity and integrity of the scientific record.
We appreciate the care authors invest in preparing manuscripts and the efforts of reviewers in providing thorough evaluations. However, there may be exceptional circumstances in which published articles must be withdrawn or corrected for scientific reasons. Such decisions are not taken lightly and are made only when necessary.
In these cases, corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies will be issued in line with best practices to maintain confidence in the integrity of our electronic archive. It is our policy to safeguard the completeness and reliability of the scientific record.
Engineering Spectrum is committed to upholding the integrity of the scholarly record. In some cases, it may be necessary to retract articles.
The following COPE criteria (as detailed in the COPE Retraction Guideline) are used to determine whether an article should be retracted:
There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, due to:
Major error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), or
Fabrication (e.g. of data), or
Falsification (e.g. image manipulation)
The article constitutes plagiarism
The findings have been previously published elsewhere without proper attribution, disclosure, or permission (redundant publication)
The article contains material or data used without authorisation
Copyright has been infringed or there is another serious legal issue (e.g. libel, privacy breach)
The article reports unethical research
The article has been published solely on the basis of a compromised or manipulated peer-review process
The authors failed to disclose a major competing interest which, in the editor’s opinion, would have unduly affected the interpretation of the work or recommendations
Retraction procedure:
The journal editor is alerted to an article that may require retraction.
The editor follows COPE-recommended procedures, including seeking a response from the authors.
Before taking action, the editor gathers all relevant information. An Ethics Advisory Board may be formed from members of the Editorial Board to ensure a consistent and best-practice-based approach.
The final decision regarding retraction is communicated to the author(s).
The retraction statement is posted online and published in the next available issue of the journal.
Authors may retain copyright to their articles, but this does not entitle them to retract an article unilaterally after publication. The integrity of the scientific record takes precedence, and COPE’s Retraction Guidelines apply in all cases.
Once an article has been accepted for publication, Engineering Spectrum sends proofs to the authors for final checking. Authors must carefully proofread these versions.
Post-publication changes are generally discouraged. However, Engineering Spectrum may issue a correction when:
A minor part of an otherwise reliable publication is substantially incorrect or misleading (e.g. due to an honest error)
The author or contributor list is incorrect (e.g. omission of an author, or inclusion of a non-qualifying author)
Types of corrections:
Publisher correction (erratum): Notifies readers of an important error introduced during production that affects the publication record, scientific integrity, or reputation of authors/the journal.
Author correction (corrigendum): Notifies readers of an important error made by the authors that affects the publication record, scientific integrity, or reputation.
Addendum: An additional contribution from the authors to clarify, expand, or update the original article.
The decision to issue a correction is made by the Editor(s), sometimes with input from reviewers or editorial board members. Handling editors will contact the authors for clarification. The final decision on whether a correction is necessary, and which type, rests with the editors.
In exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to remove a published article from the online platform. This will only occur if:
The article is clearly defamatory
The article infringes the legal rights of others
There is a court order requiring removal
The article poses a serious health risk
In such cases, the article text is removed and replaced with a notice stating that the article has been removed for legal reasons, while basic metadata (title and author information) is retained.
If an article poses a serious health risk, the authors may choose to retract the flawed original and replace it with a corrected version. Standard retraction procedures will be followed, but the retraction notice will include a link to the corrected article and a documented publication history.