The Journal SNRU Journal of Science and Technology is an international journal and publishing scientific papers of international interest focusing on biology, chemistry, physics, environment science, computer, information technology and industrial technology. All submitted manuscripts must be reviewed by at least three expert reviewers via the double-blinded review system. To ensure the standards of its publications and the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. It is, therefore, necessary that the standards of ethical obligations are met by all parties involved in the act of publishing: editors, authors, and reviewers.
Duties of Editors
1. Maintain the standards of publishing to meet the needs of readers and authors, constantly improve the journal, ensure the quality of the material they publish, champion freedom of expression, maintain the integrity of the academic record, preclude business needs from compromising intellectual standards, always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
2. Ensuring all papers are peer reviewed by three expert reviewers.
3. Ensuring that all files are submitted in the appropriate format.
4. Informing authors about the journal’s guidelines, manuscript templates and the need for correct preparation of their word files. The journal’s web site contains detailed advice on preparing, which must be brought to the attention of all authors
5. Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that journals and sections within journals will have different aims and standards.
6. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the journal.
7. A description of peer review processes should be published, and Editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described processes.
8. Editors should guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
9. Editors must keep all privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review as confidential documents and must not use such information for personal advantage. An editor’s final decision regarding acceptance and publication of a manuscript is constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
Duties of Author
1. By submitting the Manuscript to the SNRU Journal of Science and Technology, all coauthors
have been informed of the contents of the Manuscript and agree to its submission
2. The author warrants that the Manuscript: has not been published before, is not presently being considered for publication elsewhere, does not violate any intellectual property right of any person or entity, does not contain any subject matter that contravenes any laws.
3. Follow the guidelines for submission on the Journal.
4. Provide raw data if this is required when a manuscript is under review.
5. Creating all components of the manuscript of their original work, and if the authors have referenced the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
6. The authors promptly notify the journal of the discovery of any significant errors or inaccuracy in the published work and cooperate with them to either retract the paper or to publish an appropriate erratum.
Duties of Reviewers
1. Provide prompt, timely feedback to the Editors on manuscripts.
2. Maintain confidentiality of all documents in the review process.
3. Alert the Editors of any reason or possible or actual conflict of interest in relation to a manuscript or its authors, or knowledge of a study or project, and withdraw from the process.
4. Advise the Editors of possible plagiarism where authors have not cited work correctly or duplicated work in publications, including their own.
5. Give timely, feedback to authors which does not personally criticize them and provides clear supportive statements to back up their review decisions.
6. Alert the Editors when presented with a manuscript for which they do not have the expertise to review.