Journal of Applied Research on Science and Technology (JARST)’s Publication Ethics is based on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE : To keep publishing ethical standards, the publisher works closely with journal editors, authors and peer-reviewers. Journal of Applied Research on Science and Technology (JARST) assigns ethics responsibility of each publishing partners as follows:

Editors responsibilities

          1. The editors should consider the quality of the submitted manuscript based on the novelty, clarification, and the detail in agreement with the aim and scope for publication in JARST.

          2. The editor holds a position to make final decisions on peer-reviewed articles submitted for publication.

          3. The editors must select reviewers who have relevant expertise and do not have any conflicts of interest with the authors of the manuscript.

          4. The editor should evaluate manuscripts based on their academic merit and free of any commercial or self-interests.

          5. The editors must not disclose the identity of the reviewers to the authors and vice versa.

          6. The editor should not distribute any information regarding submitted manuscripts before publication.

          8. The editors can withdraw or retracted the published articles from the journal when the manuscripts with duplicate submissions, data falsification or articles have plagiarism of the other works.

Authors responsibilitie

          1. The authors should ensure that the manuscript must be original, free from any kind of plagiarism content and has not been published elsewhere.

          2. Authors can submit the manuscript to other journals only after the manuscript has been declined by JARST.

          3. Any conflict of interest must be clearly declared.

          4. All authors are accountable for any scientific mistakes and arguments as well as plagiarism.

          5. It is the duty of the corresponding author to respond to all the comments and suggestions of the reviewers. If authors do not agree with any comments of a reviewer, the authors should provide an explanation.

          6. Only those who have made any substantial contribution to the submitted work should be listed as authors.

Reviewers responsibilities

          1. Reviewers should decline the review request if the manuscript’s research area is not within their expertise.

          2. The reviewer provides a detailed, constructive, and unbiased evaluation within a period of assigned time on the scientific content of the work.

          3. Reviewers should give comments and opinions based solely on their expertise and without any conflicts of interest.

          4. The reviewer promptly reports the editor about any conflict of interest and declines to review the manuscript.

          5. Reviewers must not disclose information or results from any manuscript prior to its publication.

          6. Reviewers should inform the editor if they suspect that a manuscript contains duplicated works of other published articles.