Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The Journal invites original articles and not simultaneously submitted to another journal or conference. SITech is a peer reviewed open-access journal which covers four (4) majors areas of research that includes 1) Artificial Intelligence, 2) Communication and Information System, 3) Software Engineering, and 4) Business intelligence.

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

The submitted manuscript is first reviewed by an editor. It will be evaluated in the office, whether it is suitable for Science in Information Technology Letter focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using iThenticate.

The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers and applied Blind Peer-Review model. Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.

The suggested decision will be evaluated in an editorial board meeting. Afterward, the editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published TWO times a year (May, November)

 

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

 

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Science in Information Technology Letter is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the  Science in Information Technology Letters does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the  Science in Information Technology Letters, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

  1. 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.
  2. Review process are blind peer review.
  3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
  4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
  5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

  1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
  2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
  3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
  4. Authors must participate in the peer review process. 
  5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
  6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
  7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
  8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
  9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
  10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

  1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
  2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
  3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
  4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

  1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
  2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
  3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
  4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
  5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
  6. Editors should have a clear picture of a research’s funding sources.
  7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
  8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
  9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
  10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
  11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
  12. 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.
  13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
  14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

 

Retraction

The papers published in the Science in Information Technology Letters will be consider to retract in the publication if :

  1. They have clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabri-cation) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
  2. the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper crossreferencing, permission orjustification (i.e. cases of redundant publication)
  3. it constitutes plagiarism
  4. it reports unethical research

The mechanism of retraction follow the Retraction Guidelines of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) which can be accessed at https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction%20guidelines.pdf.

 

CrossMark policy

CrossMark 

CrossMark is a multi-publisher initiative from Crossref to provide a standard way for readers to locate the current version of a piece of content.

By applying the Crossmark logo, Science in Information Technology Letters is committing to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur. 

Clicking on the Crossmark logo on a document will tell you the current status of a document and may also give you additional publication record information about the document.

For more information on CrossMark, please visit the CrossMark site.

The Science in Information Technology Letters content that will have the CrossMark logo is restricted to current and future journal content and is limited to specific publication types. Articles in Press will not have the CrossMark icon for the present.

For general author guidelines and information, please see: http://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/sitech/about/submissions#authorGuidelines

Correction and Retraction Policies

The Science in Information Technology Letters is committed to upholding the integrity of the literature and publishes Errata, Expressions of Concerns or Retraction Notices dependent on the situation and in accordance with the COPE Retraction Guidelines. More information about the publication of ethics Science in Information Technology Letters can be found on Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and information about COPE retraction guidelines can be accessed at Retraction page.

 

DOI: 10.31763/sitech.crossmark.policy

 

Policy of Screening for Plagiarism

Papers submitted to Science in Information Technology Letters will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Science in Information Technology Letters will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.

Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to Science in Information Technology Letters must have similarity level less than 15%.

Plagiarism is the exposing of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. In order to properly judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:

  • An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified through comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
  • Substantial copying implies for an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
  • Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.
 

 

Withdrawal of Manuscripts

Author is not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts, because the withdrawal is waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing submitted manuscript, and works invested by the publisher.

If author still requests withdrawal of his/her manuscript when the manuscript is still in the peer-reviewing process, author will be punished with paying $200 per manuscript, as withdrawal penalty to the publisher. However, it is unethical to withdraw a submitted manuscript from one journal if accepted by another journal.

The withdrawal of manuscript after the manuscript is accepted for publication, author will be punished by paying US$400 per manuscript. Withdrawal of manuscript is only allowed after withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the Publisher. If author don't agree to pay the penalty, the author and his/her affiliation will be blacklisted for publication in this journal. Even, his/her previously published articles will be removed from our online system.

 

Posting Your Article Policy

Understand Science in Information Technology Letters's article sharing and posting policies for each stage of the article life cycle.

Prior to submission to Science in Information Technology Letters
Authors may post their article anywhere at any time, including on preprint servers such as arXiv.org. This does not count as a prior publication.

Upon submission to Science in Information Technology Letters
Authors may share or post their submitted version of the article (also known as the preprint) in the following ways:

  1. On the author’s personal website or their employer’s website
  2. On institutional or funder websites if required
  3. In the author’s own classroom use
  4. On Scholarly Collaboration Networks (SCNs) that are signatories to the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers’ Sharing Principles (https://www.stm-assoc.org/stm-consultations/scn-consultation-2015/)
The following text should be included on the first page of the submitted article when it first is posted in any of the above outlets: “This work has been submitted to the Science in Information Technology Letters, http://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/sitech, for possible publication".

Upon acceptance to Science in Information Technology Letters
If an author previously posted their submitted version of the article in any of the following locations, he or she will need to replace the submitted version with the accepted version of Science in Information Technology Letters. No other changes may be made to the accepted article.
  1. Author’s personal website
  2. Author’s employer’s website
  3. arXiv.org
  4. Funder’s repository*
Final published article
  1. When the article is published, the posted version should be updated with a full citation to the original of Science in Information Technology Letters, including DOI. He or she will need to replace the accepted version with the published article version of Science in Information Technology Letters.
  2. The article will be followed statements on the Science in Information Technology Letters's copyright notice at http://pubs2.ascee.org/index.php/sitech/about/submissions#copyrightNotice.