Home

 Editorial Board

 Scientific Committee

 Issues

 Archive

 News & Informations

 Review Process

 Bibliographic Info

 Contact us

 Ethics Statements

University POLITEHNICA

Timişoara

www.upt.ro

 

Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,

www.fih.upt.ro

 

ANNALS of

Faculty Engineering Hunedoara

– International Journal

of Engineering

http://annals.fih.upt.ro/

 

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS

– Bulletin of Engineering

http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

 

Editura POLITEHNICA

www.editurapolitehnica.upt.ro

 

 

copyright ©

University Politehnica Timisoara, Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,

5, Revolutiei, 331128, Hunedoara, ROMANIA

http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

“Editura POLITEHNICA” (EP) - www.editurapolitehnica.upt.ro (POLITEHNICA Publishing House belongs to University POLITEHNICA Timişoara (UPT, www.upt.ro) and has published for decades now text books, monographs and scientific bulletins (journals) divided in series dedicated to various branches of engineering.

All journals serve to further academic discussions of topics, irrespective of their nature – whether religious, gender-based, environmental, ethical, political, or other potentially or topically contentious subjects. “Editura POLITEHNICA” (EP) is binding oneself to meeting and sustaining standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the review and publication processes.

The main aim of the “Editura POLITEHNICA” (EP) is to consolidate its position as an unit, specialized in the technical books and journals, didactically or scientifically, thus bringing real added value to the prestige of the University POLITEHNICA Timişoara (UPT). Quality assurance, on both components: content and form, at a reasonable price, is another objective of “Editura POLITEHNICA” (EP).

 The Editorial Board follows that the authors, the journal editor, the peer-reviewers, the journal publisher, and the owner of the journal have responsibilities to meet expected actual ethical standards at all stages in their involvement from submission (upload) to publication of each article.

 

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering is dedicated to following the best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the Journal does not tolerate plagiarism in any form.

The ethic statements of the ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS – Bulletin of Engineering are based on the Code of Conduct for Journal Publishers and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the author, the proceedings editor, the peer reviewer and the publisher.

 

A summary of our key expectations for authors, editors and (peer-) reviewers, is here detailed:

 

SECTION A: Publication and Authorship

By submitting a manuscript to this journal, each author explicitly confirms that the manuscript meets the highest ethical standards for authors and coauthors.

All manuscripts must be submitted using the format outlined in the Instructions to Authors.

The Editor-in-Chief and the reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the Authors.

All submitted papers are subject to strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper and they will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.

The reviewing of manuscripts is an essential step in the publication process. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.

The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions (minor or major), or rejection.

If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.

Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.

The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.

No research can be included in more than one publication (Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications). It is unethical for an author to publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal of primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently is unethical and unacceptable.

The Editor-in-Chief, the members of the Editorial Board, and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors of the manuscript, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

SECTION B: Authors' Responsibilities & Duties

(Obligations of Authors)

An author's central obligation is to present a concise, accurate account of the research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance.

Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or conference. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal or conference constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. 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.

Authors must participate in the peer review process.

Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.

Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.

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.

An author should make no changes to a paper after it has been accepted. If there is a compelling reason to make changes, the author is obligated to inform the editor directly of the nature of the desired change. Only the editor has the final authority to approve any such requested changes.

Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or 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.

SECTION C: Reviewers' Responsibilities & Duties

(Obligations of Reviewers of Manuscripts)

Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers, obtained through peer review, confidential and treat them as privileged information or ideas, and not used for personal advantage.

Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author. A reviewer of a manuscript should judge objectively the quality of the manuscript and respect the intellectual independence of the authors. In no case is personal criticism appropriate.

Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors and authors may understand the basis of their comments. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Reviewers should not review 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.

Peer review assists Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.

SECTION D: Editors' & Publisher's Responsibilities & Duties

(Obligations of Editors& Publisher)

Both EP and the Editor-in-Chief, on behalf of which it publishes, shall ensure that the good practice is continuous to the standards delineated above.

Based on the review report of the editorial review board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript.

Editors have complete responsibility and authority to accept a submitted paper for publication or to reject it. The editor may confer with reviewers for an evaluation to use in making this decision.

Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.

Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.

Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.

Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.

Editors should have a clear picture of a research's funding sources.

Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers' importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication's scope.

Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason.

Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers.

Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.

Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.

Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.

Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.

Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

The editors will be guided by Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)'s Guidelines for Retracting Articles when considering retracting, issuing expressions of concern about, and issuing corrections pertaining to articles that have been published.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the own research of the Editor-in-Chief or the members of the Editorial Board without the express written consent of the author.

If the editor is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the journal are erroneous, the editor should facilitate publication of an appropriate paper pointing out the error and, if possible, correcting it.

Identification of unethical (malpractice) behavior:

Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor in chief and publisher at any time, by anyone using any way of communication.

Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as delineated above.

Whoever informs the Editor-in-Chief or Publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Breaches:

Minor misconduct might be dealt with/without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious misconduct might require that the employer of the accused be notified. The editor in chief, together with the publisher, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Investigation:

An initial decision should be taken by the Editor-in-Chief, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher, if appropriate.

Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Outcomes:

Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.

A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.

Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.

Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.

A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.

Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.

Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period in this way, papers found with signs of plagiarism / self-plagiarism are rejected; the author will receive a letter where he is also announced that he is barred from sending another paper proposal to the Journal for 2 years.

Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.

 Important definition:

Conflict of interest means that Authors submitting a paper must declare any potential conflicts of interest - of any type: financial, non-financial, professional, or personal;

Conflicts of interest are those that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on the presentation, review or publication of their work.

Editura POLITEHNICA

www.editurapolitehnica.upt.ro

 

copyright © University Politehnica Timisoara,

Faculty of Engineering Hunedoara,

5, Revolutiei, 331128, Hunedoara, ROMANIA

http://acta.fih.upt.ro/

ACTA TECHNICA CORVINIENSIS - Bulletin of Engineering | Copyright © 2008-2018