Peer Review Policy
The author(s) of the article accept(s) the ethical responsibilities that fit the PUBLICATION ETHICS. Each author is responsible for the content of the article. Articles submitted for publication are checked by the Turnitin (Professional Plagiarism Prevention) program. If an article contains plagiarism or self-plagiarism in more than 30% of the manuscript, it will be returned to the author for appropriate citation and correction.
- Submission of the same manuscript to different journals will not be accepted.
- Submissions with contents outside the scope of ENAP will not be considered for review.
- All papers are expected to have original content. They should not have been previously published or under review.
- The journal requires a minimum of three independent reviewers. All submissions are subject to a double blind peer review.
- Publication decisions are made by the journal's Editor-in-Chief on the basis of the reviewer reports.
- Submitted papers and reviewer reports are archived whether they are published or not.
- Authors who want to discontinue the publication process after submission to ENAP have to apply to the editorial board in a written correspondence.
- Authors are responsible for the writing quality of his or her papers.
- The ENAP journal is free of charge and will not pay any copyright fee to authors.
Open Access Copyright Policy
Open access (OA) journals are scholarly journals that are available online "without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself.” Open Access (OA) provides unlimited access and reuseability of research publications online for free. Therefore, the open access creates the network for reaching the widest possible audience, sharing the entire papers and building upon them.
Engineering Applications (ENAP) has signed the Budapest Open Access Initiative and shows its “openness” clearly in a standardized form.
ENAP also supports the Budapest Open Access Initiative definition of ''Open Access,'' which is defined as:
“Its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited.”
Articles published in ENAP will be Open-Access articles distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License
ENAP is licenced by Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
You can find information about CC-BY-SA please click https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode
Archieving Policy (LOCKSS)
The LOCKSS system has permission to collect, preserve, and serve this Archival Unit.
Engineering Applications is using the LOCKKS archiving system.
The LOCKSS Program, based on the program used at Stanford University Libraries, provides libraries and publishers with award-winning, low-cost, open source digital preservation tools to preserve and provide access to persistent and authoritative digital content.
The LOCKSS Program (https://www.lockss.org/) is an open-source, library-led digital preservation system built on the principle that “lots of copies keep stuff safe.” The LOCKSS Program develops and supports libraries using an open source peer-to-peer digital preservation software.
The LOCKSS system allows librarians to access to the e-content to which they subscribe, restoring the print purchase model with which librarians are familiar.
The Global LOCKSS Network preserves today's e-journals and e-books for tomorrow's readers. The Global LOCKSS Network is a proven preservation approach that uniquely empowers both libraries and publishers. It enhances a library's value by restoring library collections via a locally installed "LOCKSS box", which is essentially a digital bookshelf. The Global LOCKSS Network enhances a publisher's value by preserving the original published artifact, including branding, historical context, and underlying files. It protects the publisher's interest by driving all reader traffic to their web site. The Global LOCKSS Network is administered and managed by the Stanford University Libraries LOCKSS Program. See the LOCKSS Program website for additional information, http://www.lockss.org/lockss/Home.
A detailed explanation of what sets the LOCKSS software apart and how preservation works in the LOCKSS network (e.g. technical infrastructure, security) can be found in the following link: https://www.lockss.org/use-lockss/how-lockss-works
Complaints are welcome as they provide an opportunity for improvement. Responses to complaints should be quick, helpful, and constructive. Please address complaints with a volume number, issue number, paper ID, paper title, and page number.
Engineering Applications (ENAP) accepts the following complaints:
- Authorship complaints
- Plagiarism complaints
- Multiple, duplicate, and concurrent publications or simultaneous submissions
- Allegations of research errors and fraud
- Research standards violations
- Undisclosed conflicts of interest
- Reviewer bias or competitive/harmful acts by reviewers
Policy for Handling Complaints
If the Journal receives a complaint that any contribution to the Journal infringes intellectual property rights or contains material inaccuracies, libelous materials, or otherwise unlawful materials, the Journal will investigate the complaint. An investigation may include a request that the parties involved substantiate their claims (the Journal will make a good faith determination whether to remove the allegedly wrongful material). A decision not to remove material should represent the Journal's belief that the complaint is without sufficient foundation, or if well‐founded, that a legal defense or exemption may apply. The Journal will document its investigation and decision. We strive to ensure that ENAP is of the highest quality and is free from errors. However, we accept that occasionally mistakes might happen.
Editorial Complaints Policy
The Managing Editor and staff of ENAP will make every endeavor to resolve issues as soon as possible in the most appropriate way, offering a right of reply when necessary. We will investigate complaints in a blame-free manner, looking to see how systems can be improved to prevent mistakes occurring.
Our general approach to complaints is that they are a rare but inevitable part of a process that involves putting together complex material at great speed. Despite rare mistakes, we will spend effort to treat complaints with urgency. Timely solutions can prevent the escalation of problems. All substantial errors and complaints are referred to senior executives within the editorial staff.
The procedure outlined below aims to be fair to the submitting authors who have complaints as well as the things they complain about. All complaints will be acknowledged within three working days if by email. If possible, a definitive response will be made within two weeks. If impossible, an interim response will be given within two weeks. Interim responses will be provided until the complaint is resolved. Escalated complaints are sent to the editor.
How to Make a Complaint
Complaints about editorial content should be made as soon as possible after publication, preferably by email to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Article Correction Policy
The online, published version of an article is considered the final and complete version. Even though it is possible to correct this version, our policy (in common with other publishers) is not to do so, except in very rare circumstances.
The only typographical errors that can be corrected are: author names, affiliations, article titles, abstracts, and keywords. In such cases, an erratum or corrigendum would be necessary as well (see below) so that there is a record of the difference between the online and print versions.
We can publish a correction to your article if there is a serious error, for example with regard to scientific accuracy, or if your reputation or that of the journal would be affected. We do not publish corrections that do not affect the contribution in a material way or significantly impair the reader’s understanding of the contribution (such as a spelling mistake or a grammatical error).
Please send an email to email@example.com in the event a correction is needed.
An erratum will be used if an important error has been found during the publication process of the journal article. Errors requiring an erratum include: an error that affects the publication record, the scientific integrity of the paper, the reputation of the authors or of the journal, and errors of omission (e.g. failure to make factual proof corrections requested by authors within the deadline provided by the journal and within journal policy).
Erratas are not published for typing errors except where an error is significant (for example, an incorrect unit). A significant error in a figure or table is corrected by the publication of a newly- corrected figure or table as an erratum. The figure or table is republished only if the editor considers it necessary.
A corrigendum is a notification of a significant error made by the authors of the article. All authors must sign a corrigenda that is submitted for publication.
In cases where co-authors disagree, the editors will take advice from independent peer-reviewers and impose the appropriate amendment; noting the dissenting author(s) in the text of the published version.
An addendum is a notification of a peer-reviewed addition of information to a paper. An example is a response to a reader’s request for clarification. Addenda do not contradict the original publication. If the author inadvertently omits significant information, the information can be published as an addendum after peer review.
Addenda are published only rarely and only when the editors decide that the addendum is crucial to the reader’s understanding of a significant part of the published contribution.