Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets/Policy

From Ifigenia, the wiki for intuitionistic fuzzy sets and generalized nets
Jump to: navigation, search

SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS

Authors are encouraged to send their papers in LaTeX or MS Word, with respect to the following layout design requirements:

Submissions that are not typeset in accordance with the templates above will be returned to authors for correction.

Send your submissions to: k.t.atanassov@gmail.com or krat@bas.bg.


PUBLISHING ETHICS POLICY

The present Publishing Ethics Policy concerns the standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing in "Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets". The document aims to provide clear description and management of situations that may arise if these ethical standards have not been adhered to by the parties, while promoting shared understanding of the responsible publication practices in maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record.

Submission of Manuscripts

When making paper submissions, authors should consult the “Submission Instructions” of "Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets" (herein after referred to as “the Journal”), which contains instructions about the formatting style and the procedure of submission.

Manuscripts should be prepared according to the provided journal template, both LaTeX and MS Word submissions are acceptable. Submissions that significantly deviate from the specifications of the journal template, may be returned to authors for reformatting and resubmission.

Declaration of Originality and Authorship

Along with the initial manuscript submission, the corresponding author is prompted and required to submit also a cover letter, which certifies that:

  1. All authors who have made significant contributions to the work are included in the author list, its order has been agreed by all authors, and all authors are aware of the paper submission.
  2. Any potential acknowledgements and/or conflict of interests have been disclosed.
  3. The work submitted is original and does not include copyright infringements (plagiarisms).
  4. The work in full text has not been previously published nor is under consideration elsewhere, in either English or other language.
  5. Partial reuse of other works is only possible:
    • a) in amount, justified by the purpose,
    • b) in the context of critical commentary and discussion of the work in question, and
    • c) as long as the respective sources are duly quoted and cited.

Any changes to the author list after submission, such as a change in the order of the authors, or the deletion or addition of authors, must be approved by every author from the original author list.

Peer Review Process

Each paper submission is sent out for peer review to at least three independent reviewers, whose identities are not released, in a process named single blind peer review. Papers may, however, be returned to authors without review if the Editors consider that they fall out of scope of the Journal or fail to meet the basic criteria of scientific presentation, significance and novelty.

NNTDM’s pool of reviewers includes scholars, who are recommended or invited by the members of the Editorial Office with respect to their field of expertise. Spontaneous applications from scholars to join the Journal’s pool of reviewers will not be considered.

Reviewer selection is based on multiple factors and considerations, including expertise (e.g. according to the Mathematical Subject Classification codes in the submission), reputation, prior experience, current workload and availability. In general, reviewers are expected to be quick, careful and provide reasoning for their reviews. When reviewers agree to assess a paper, the Journal considers this a commitment to review subsequent paper revisions, as well.

Peer review is fundamental in ensuring the integrity of the scientific publication process and can flag potential misconduct at an early stage. Reviewers shall conduct their evaluation in a timely and objective manner, avoiding any personal or unsupported criticisms. Reviewers agree not to disclose any information regarding the manuscript to any other party or to use any part of the content on their own behalf. To guarantee a completely rigorous and unbiased review process, reviewers should not have any conflict of interests with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders.

In case of unavailable reviewers from the Journal’s own pool of reviewers, the authors may be offered to propose suitable independent reviewers, who are not directly affiliated with their research unit and are not in any other form of conflict of interest with them. However, the Editorial Office reserves the right to ignore such proposals, if deemed inappropriate, and proceed with its own pool of reviewers.

The final decision concerning the manuscript is taken by the Editorial Office based on the reviewer reports and recommendations. The possible decisions of the Editorial Office are:

  • Acceptance
  • Minor revision
  • Major revision (new review procedure required)
  • Rejection

At least two strongly positive reviews are required for a submission to be accepted for publication.

The usual review process would take up to four months, but this period may be longer depending on the specifics of the research presented and reviewers’ availability in this period.

Editors and reviewers are required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers will be removed from the Journal’s pool of reviewers if they have been proved to conduct unethical practices against the authors and manuscripts they have been assigned to review.

Post-publication issues

If in the process of publication, (technical) errors have been introduced to the article, the Journal is responsible to correct the errors in a timely manner (in the electronic version of the Journal) or publish a respective errata (in both the electronic and printed versions).

If Journal’s authors discover (scientific) errors in their accepted and/or published papers, and demand changes from the Editorial Office, then, depending on the timing and impact of the changes, the authors will be given the choice to correct their manuscript prior to publication, or publish a respective corrigendum (in both the electronic and the printed version of the Journal). For published papers, depending on the respective reviewers’ opinion, the authors may be further invited to submit of a new follow-up manuscript with substantially new, original results, which informs the readership of the discovered errors and comments on the respective corrections.

In the electronic version of the Journal, these original publications will be linked to the respective errata, corrigenda, or eventual follow-up publications.

If copyright infringements become evident post-publication, the Journal may retract (remove) the publication or demand its correction (in its electronic version), depending on the degree of the infringement, the context within the published article and its impact on the overall integrity of the publication.

Other Provisions

Any other situations of ethical nature that have not been covered by the present Ethical Policy will be handled by the Editorial Office in the spirit of good faith and fair dealing, and will be reflected in a future amendment of this policy.