Journal Information
Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics
Publication Ethics for Research and Academic Articles
Submitted to the Built Environment Inquiry (BEI) Journal
Duties of Authors
1. The author must certify that the research or academic article that is being submitted for approval to the journal has not been previously published anywhere and is not in the process of receiving publication approval from any other journal.
2. The author must include a list of all co-authors of the article. Any individual, whose name is listed on the article, must have taken part in the research or the writing of the article. The list of names shall be in accordance with the volume of the workload that each individual shared in.
3. The article content must be derived from a study, research, and experiment in which no data has been fraudulently produced, is academically biased, or in which no data has been modified for any benefit of the author.
4. The use of works published in public media, whether they be the study outcomes, pictures, data, and/or graphics from others in the article (either directly or through making modifications so that they differ from the original work), need to be clearly and appropriately cited in order to acknowledge the parts of the content or data that belong to others. Otherwise, the modified parts must be stated in the content, under the pictures, and in the references. If the work is legally patented, a written authorization or approval is required from the source.
5. The authors must write the outcomes of the research studies / academic research in accordance with the format and conditions set by the journal. For example, the conditions include the font type and size, line and paragraph spacing, the allowed number of pages for articles, and the reference format, etc. With respect to articles, which have been granted monetary support in part or in full, or which have received any other kind of major support, the support must be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section and must be complete and concise, as well as must conform to the contract or conditions of the scholarship source.
6. If the study or experiment was conducted on humans, the authors must be cautious in the presentation so that it follows the research standards and ethics. Moreover, none of the evidentiary information can be connected to the informant in case the study is sensitive and the disclosure of information has not been performed with the consent of the research participant, or if it will have an impact on the daily life of the participant, or if it will reduce the profits that the participant is entitled to.
7. Upon receiving the suggestions for making amendments and improvements to the article from the Editors or the reviewers, the author should look at the suggested details and amend them accordingly if he/ she sees that doing so would raise the quality and academic standards of the article, or the author can decide to leave the part as it is. Detailed explanations must be provided about how the part has been rewritten or why the author has chosen to retain this portion.
8. After receiving approval by the journal, the final step that the author needs to take is to proofread the article to see that the content, typographics, the use of language, and the use of graphics and citations have all met the academic standards and journal conditions before publication. If there is an error in the original copy from the printer, the author must make a reproach and request amendments.
9. If, for whatever reason, the author wishes to withdraw an article that is in the process of evaluation before publication and the request to withdraw has not arisen based upon the operations of the journal, then the author should contact the journal at his/her first opportunity and should then submit a cancellation request in writing. If any expenditures have been incurred, the author shall be responsible for them, especially with respect to the real and payable remuneration for the reviewers. The amount payable should be transferred to the bank account of the unit, which is responsible for the finances of the journal, and in due course, a receipt will be issued.
Duties of Editors
1. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal shall have the duty to control the quality of the articles from the initial steps until the finished publication. The quality includes having academic value, not being published elsewhere, and having relevant content with respect to the journal’s publication policies. The three following steps are involved in the consideration of an article:
1.1 Performing quality screening and informing authors of their initial acceptance before sending the article to reviewers.
1.2 Rejecting an article based upon the evaluation criteria if the article does not meet the requirements of the journal.
1.3 Making a request of the author and asking him/her to improve the content and related elements before sending the article to reviewers.
1.4 Contacting the author and giving the details of the needed amendments; then considering the quality before sending it to experts in the field to read.
2. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal shall not disclose the information about the author and the reviewers to irrelevant individuals during the period in which the article is being evaluated.
3. The article to be published is required to undergo evaluation and amendments as per the suggestions of the reviewers. The final checks are only to be performed by the Editors and the Editorial Board.
4. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal have the duty to screen the article and to propose at least 2 reviewers, who have been justified as experts in the field and who are widely accepted in the academic circle; as well as to coordinate, facilitate, and to follow-up on the evaluation of the article so that everything is accomplished within the appropriate time frame. No information linked to the author of the article shall be disclosed. If necessary, more reviewers can be appointed in case the results of the first evaluation are considered to be borderline or are not in agreement.
5. During the course of the quality evaluation, if the Editor and Editorial Board of the journal doubt the source of the content and/or different elements found in the article, the process shall be halted no matter the stage that the article has reached in the examination process. The author will be given a chance to explain and show evidence so that he/she can certify that the article has principally gone through decent and appropriate studies according to relevant aspects.
6. With respect to the author, the reviewers, or the stakeholders, the Editor and Editorial Board of the journal must not have any conflicts of interest or any biases due to personal identity regarding gender, sexual preference, nationality, religion, and/or beliefs.
7. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal must inspect and screen the content of the article to avoid In order to make certain that there is no plagiarism and that the citations have been appropriately, academically, and ethically performed, a reliable program should be used and/or inspection by means of other tools should be carried out.
8. During the course of article evaluation, if the Editor and Editorial Board detect plagiarism or discover that the article has already been published, the process of evaluation shall cease and the author shall be contacted for declaration prior to the “acceptance” or the “rejection” of publication of the article.
9. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal are to regularly improve the quality of the journal so that it is published ‘on schedule’. The evaluation process should be rapid and efficient. Proofreading and making the amendments, which have been made from the suggestions of the reviewers, must be performed “until” the article correlates with the suggestions the author has been advised of, so that the accuracy and academic standards of the article can be observed. This includes inspection of the format of all articles to maintain the consistency and cognizance of the ever-changing direction of global academic publications.
10. The Editor and Editorial Board of the journal are to cooperate with the publisher and the author to check the original copy, to proofread the content, and to make corrections at the final stage for accuracy and completeness in order to achieve the optimal academic benefits.
11. Should there be any problems, which are related to the quality of the article after the acceptance letter has been issued, the Editor and Editorial Board will not revoke their decision. Instead, they will continue to coordinate with the author to make further amendments to the article until all of the quality standards are met and it has been deemed appropriate for publication. The only exemption will arise in the case of a serious problem that impacts the journal’s standards of quality and reliability. Under such conditions, the Editor and Editorial Board reserve the right to revoke the acceptance of the article.
Duties of Reviewers
1. After being contacted by the journal, the reviewers should primarily consider whether the content of the article correlates with their expertise or not before accepting to evaluate the article.
2. Regarding whether or not a reviewer has a conflict of interest with the author, if, for example, the reviewer has previously participated in the project, personally knows the author, or the reviewer has other reasons that would prohibit the unobstructed provision of opinions and recommendations; then the reviewer should inform the Editor of the journal and disqualify himself/herself from the article evaluation.
3. The reviewers must reserve the confidentiality of the article and must not disclose the information in the article (either in part or in full) to other irrelevant individuals during the course of article evaluation, regardless of whether or not the article will be published later or will not pass the criteria.
4. The reviewers should only review articles that are in the fields of their own expertise and should consider the significance of the content over the discipline area, especially whether it will fill an academic gap and whether the study outcomes, analytical quality, and in-depth criticism of the results will unbiasedly have a broad impact upon the disciplinary circle. Moreover, there should be an absence of personal and unsupported opinions, which are used as the criteria to judge of the research.
5. The reviewers must understand the importance of this duty and should dedicate time for the evaluation of the article, as well as should provide standard recommendations for improvement. Suggested corrections include changes in the format, spelling, or the standards of language use. The following are the major elements to be taken into consideration when determining the quality of an article:
- An abstract that includes the background, the research methodology, the results of study, and the overall findings
- A clear rationale of the study that covers the related and major literature in the author’s field in which the academic gap in the research direction is clearly identified and which demonstrates the disciplinary expertise of the author. If there are key research results, which are related to the article under evaluation and which have not been cited by the author, then the reviewer should suggest these in the comments.
- The clarity of the study objectives
- A correlation of the study objectives with the methodology
- A systematic and reasonable presentation of the results of study
- An analysis and critical examination of the results of the study that demonstrate new findings and observations, which have significant academic impact
- Standard citations with complete details and correlations with academic principles
6. If any part of the article resembles or reiterates the work of other individuals, then the reviewers should inform the Editor, even if the article may have been previously approved for publication by the reviewers, so that the Editorial Board will make appropriate decision.
7. The reviewers may suggest that the author make certain corrections. If the suggested revisions have been made and if the corrected version still does not meet the standards, the reviewer may reject the article for publication. However, such a decision must be made based upon the reviewers’ unbiased considerations, which will lead to the reviewers having to make a judgment about the author’s inability to make the amendments.
