Policies & Guidelines/Journal Policies
Journal Policies
The Journal of Advanced Computing and Technology (JACT) outlines comprehensive policies that govern the submission, editorial, and publication processes, as well as the responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors. These policies are designed to ensure a transparent, ethical, and efficient publishing process. We invite all stakeholders to familiarize themselves with their rights and obligations by reviewing the detailed guidelines provided in the following subsections.
Journal Objectives
The objectives of the (JACT) are as follows:
1.To provide a rigorous platform for the publication of high-quality, peer-reviewed research in the fields of Computer Science, Engineering, Information Technology, and related areas.
2.To foster the development of new ideas and innovative technologies by encouraging the submission of original research, reviews, and technical papers that contribute to advancements in computing and technology.
3.To serve as a global forum for the exchange of knowledge and ideas, encouraging collaboration among researchers, academicians, and professionals from diverse geographical and institutional backgrounds.
4.To ensure that cutting-edge research is accessible to a wide audience by maintaining an open-access policy, allowing unrestricted online access to all published content.
5.To promote the highest standards of ethics and integrity in research and publication, ensuring that all published work adheres to rigorous ethical guidelines.
6.To contribute to the educational goals of the academic community by publishing research that is not only innovative but also educational, providing insights that can be integrated into teaching and professional development.
7.To influence the development of policies and practices in the field of computing and technology by publishing research that addresses current challenges and proposes practical solutions.
Authorship
To be recognized as an author, an individual must have made a significant intellectual contribution to both the research and the writing of the article. Authors are expected to accept shared responsibility for the research findings and the content of the article, and they must provide their approval for the final version before publication. Individuals who have contributed to the research or writing but do not meet the criteria for authorship should be acknowledged and thanked in the “Acknowledgements” section at the end of the article. Any modifications to the list of authors during the peer review process or after the manuscript has been accepted must be agreed upon by all listed authors, with a justification for any additions or removals submitted to the Editor-in-Chief. It is recommended that each author’s specific contributions be detailed in a “Contributor List” at the end of the article (e.g., “TS and SS conceptualized the study and were responsible for the design and development of the data analysis. TS, MG, and SS conducted data collection and analysis. TS and SS interpreted the data. MG drafted the initial manuscript.”).
Authors’ warranties
All authors bear the responsibility to ensure that:
1.The manuscript represents their original work and does not replicate any previously published material, including their own earlier publications.
2.The manuscript has been exclusively submitted to this journal and is not under consideration, peer review, or accepted for publication elsewhere, nor has it been published or is in press in any other venue.
3.The manuscript is free from any content that could be deemed abusive, defamatory, libelous, obscene, fraudulent, or illegal.
Failure to comply with these conditions will be regarded as misconduct and addressed accordingly. Should authors be found in violation of any of these standards, the publisher reserves the right to impose charges for the costs incurred by the journal in processing the manuscript, at the discretion of the Journal’s Editors and the publisher.
Manuscript Review and Decision Process
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the editorial office to determine its suitability for the (JACT). Manuscripts that fall outside the journal’s scope, exhibit clearly insufficient quality, or lack critical sections may be rejected at this stage without undergoing the peer review process. For manuscripts deemed appropriate for further consideration, the journal invites external experts, who may or may not be members of the Editorial Board, to conduct the peer review. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision based on recommendations from at least two external reviewers.
Authors are encouraged to suggest potential reviewers who are experts in the relevant field. While these suggestions are taken into consideration, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial office retain the right to select reviewers independently. The rationale for soliciting reviewer suggestions from authors is that they are often well-positioned to identify leading experts in their area of research. Additionally, these suggested reviewers may be considered for evaluating other manuscripts on similar topics, thereby assisting the editorial office in securing qualified reviewers for all submissions.
The journal employs a single-blind peer review process, where the identities of the authors are disclosed to the reviewers, but the reviewers remain anonymous to the authors. Authors have the option to request that their names be blinded if they prefer.
Once the peer review is complete and at least two reviews have been received, the Editor-in- Chief will make one of the following decisions:
Accept: The manuscript is approved for publication as is.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and will be re- evaluated after resubmission.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.
The decision, along with the reasoning behind it, will be communicated to the authors.
If the decision requires a minor or major revision, the authors are expected to revise their manuscript in accordance with the reviewers’ comments. Should the authors fail to adequately address the requested revisions, the Editor-in-Chief reserves the right to reject the manuscript. Depending on the extent of the revisions, the revised manuscript may either be sent out for further review, or the Editor-in-Chief may make a final decision.
The timeframe for the review process and decision-making can vary significantly, as finding suitable reviewers and receiving their reports can sometimes lead to delays. However, the Editor-in-Chief and editorial office strive to minimize the time from submission to the initial decision, with a target of reaching a decision within 40–60 days after the review process begins. It is important to note, however, that this timeline cannot be guaranteed.
Please note that submissions that do not report original research, such as letters to the editor or editorials, do not undergo external peer review. In these cases, the Editor-in-Chief independently decides whether to publish the manuscript.
Author appeals
If an author believes that their manuscript was unjustly rejected, they have the right to appeal the decision. To initiate an appeal, the author must submit a formal request via email to either the Editor-in-Chief or the publisher. This request should include a detailed explanation of why the author believes the rejection was incorrect, addressing specific points raised in the decision.
The appeal will be reviewed by a member of the Editorial Board who was not involved in the initial decision-making process. This individual will be selected jointly by the Editor-in-Chief and the publisher to ensure an impartial evaluation of the appeal.
It is important to note that authors are given only one opportunity to appeal. Therefore, it is crucial that the appeal is thoroughly prepared and clearly articulates the rationale for reconsideration. Authors should ensure that all relevant information, evidence, or arguments that support their case are included in the appeal.
The decision on the appeal is final and will be communicated to the author after careful consideration by the assigned Editorial Board member. While the appeals process offers a chance for reconsideration, it is essential that authors respect the final decision of the journal.
Supplemental information
The (JACT) welcomes the submission of supplementary files that enhance or support the main article. These supplementary materials may include a variety of formats, such as audio recordings, video files, datasets, or additional text documents like survey questionnaires that are referenced within the article.
Authors should submit all supplementary materials at the time of the manuscript submission. While these materials will not undergo the same formal peer review as the main article, they will be evaluated by the editorial team to determine their relevance and necessity to the overall content of the article.
It is important for authors to understand that they bear full responsibility for the content of any supplementary materials. Consequently, each supplementary file must include a disclaimer clearly stating that the materials have not been formally peer-reviewed by the journal. This disclaimer serves to inform readers that the supplementary content is provided as-is and has not been subjected to the same rigorous evaluation as the main article.
By including supplementary materials, authors can provide additional context or evidence that supports their research, but they must also ensure that the content is accurate and directly relevant to the manuscript. The inclusion of these materials should be considered carefully, and they should add value to the research without duplicating information already contained in the main article.
Data sharing
The (JACT) strongly encourages researchers to archive and share their data. With many funding agencies now mandating data sharing, we recognize its crucial role in advancing research by allowing others to reuse, analyze, and reinterpret data, ultimately benefiting the broader scientific community. We urge all authors to deposit their data in reputable repositories, such as Figshare or similar platforms, where it will be securely archived and assigned a unique identifier, such as a DOI. This ensures that the data can be accurately cited and referenced in the authors’ publications, promoting transparency and reproducibility in research.
Permissions
Authors bear the responsibility for securing permission to reproduce any material (e.g., figures, tables, text) that has been previously published or created by another individual. Upon request from the Editorial Office or the Publisher, authors must be able to provide evidence of such permissions. This ensures that all reproduced content complies with copyright laws and ethical standards.
Conflict of interest
A Conflict of Interest (COI) arises when personal relationships (e.g., with a friend, colleague, or family member), business associations (e.g., employment in a competing company), or financial interests (e.g., funding sources) may influence an individual’s judgment during the publication process.
1.Authors are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest within their article and directly to the Editor-in-Chief. This includes any factors that may have influenced their research or their decision to submit the manuscript to the journal.
2.Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest that might affect their impartiality when reviewing a manuscript. While a COI does not necessarily disqualify a reviewer, it must be reported to the Editor-in-Chief as soon as it is identified.
3.Editors are prohibited from making decisions on manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest. For instance, if an article is submitted by a colleague of the Editor-in-Chief, the peer review process and all editorial decisions will be managed by another editor to ensure impartiality.
Plagiarism and copyright infringement
Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original and that they properly attribute all content that is not entirely their own. The journal uses plagiarism detection tools such as Crosscheck/ authenticate/ Turnitin to screen submissions for unoriginal content. The inclusion of plagiarized material is considered serious misconduct, and the journal will take appropriate action against authors found to have engaged in plagiarism or copyright.
Editorial independence
Editors of (JACT) have full autonomy in selecting which manuscripts to consider for publication and which to accept or reject. Their decisions are made independently, without any influence from the publisher or external entities. This editorial independence is crucial in maintaining the integrity and quality of the journal.
Editorial responsibilities
Editors are entrusted with the responsibility of handling all submissions with confidentiality and ensuring that their decisions are made impartially and promptly. The selection of articles for publication is at the discretion of the editors, who must ensure that the journal’s reputation is upheld by avoiding the publication of low-quality or unethical articles. Additionally, the Editor-in-Chief is responsible for appointing members to the Editorial Board, ensuring that the board is composed of qualified and unbiased individuals committed to the journal’s standards.
use similar approach to rewrite with no plagiarism and human written. Expand if necessary.
Corrections
If an error is discovered after publication, it will be corrected by an erratum, retraction or in- line (dated) correction. Authors and readers are encouraged to inform the publisher and Editor-in-Chief if they notice anything that should be corrected.
Where an erratum or retraction notice has been issued, this will be indicated using the industry-standard Cross mark logo. This logo will indicate if any update has been issued: by clicking the logo readers will be informed if the version they are reading is the most up-to-date, or if there is any revision they need to be aware of. For more information about Cross mark, see the Cross mark website.
Reported errors will be investigated by the publisher and Editor-in-Chief, and discussed with the authors. The appropriate correction will be made after this consultation.
Articles will be retracted following the COPE
(Committee on Publication Ethics) retractions policy. Retractions are made if the content of the article is unreliable “either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)”, if the contents have been plagiarized, or if the article reports unethical research see https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/cope-ethics-toolkit-journal-editors-publishers.pdf Authors may request their articles to be retracted if they have valid reasons why it should be removed.
Misconduct
The (JACT) and the journal follow the recommendations and core practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE, https://publicationethics.org/core-practices) regarding ethical policies and dealing with misconduct. Misconduct includes falsifying data, plagiarizing others’ works, and breach of confidentiality. Each case will be considered by the publisher and Editor-in-Chief, and in all cases the author (or reviewer) will be contacted directly. However, the publisher reserves the right to speak directly to the author’s or reviewer’s institution or other appropriate organization if severe misconduct is suspected.
Note that if misconduct is suspected during the review process the manuscript will be held until any concerns have been resolved. If misconduct is confirmed during the review process the manuscript will be immediately rejected. If misconduct is proved after publication then the article will be retracted.
Complaints
Where an author, reviewer, reader, or other person has a complaint against the journal or editors, they should speak directly to the publisher in the first instance. Wherever possible, the complaint will be dealt with by the relevant publishing or editorial person. Where a resolution is not satisfactory it will be passed to a more senior person for resolution.