Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets/Policy - Revision history

Vassia Atanassova: /* Peer Review Process */

2025-07-31T12:48:24Z

Peer Review Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:48, 31 July 2025
Line 71:		Line 71:
	* Rejection		* Rejection

	At least two positive reviews are required for a submission to be accepted for publication.		At least two positive reviews are required for a submission to be accepted for publication. Manuscripts that have been rejected are not to be discussed further.

	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.		The usual review process would take up to four-six months, and 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.		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.

Vassia Atanassova: /* Publishing Ethics Policy */

2025-07-31T12:46:02Z

Publishing Ethics Policy

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:46, 31 July 2025
Line 38:		Line 38:

	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.		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.

			NNTDM reserves the right to conduct a preliminary screening (triage) of the manuscripts and desk reject without further peer review any submissions that are out of the thematic scope of the Journal, not formatted in accordance with the Journal’s templates and requirements, or feature content below the level of a scientific journal.

	=== <font color="#268BD2">Antiplagiarism check</font> ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Antiplagiarism check</font> ===

Vassia Atanassova: /* Peer Review Process */

2025-07-31T12:45:24Z

Peer Review Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 31 July 2025
Line 46:		Line 46:

	* '''Note:''' Submissions that have been deposited in preprint repositories prior to the check tend to exhibit very high similarity scores and thus invalidate the quality plagiarism check process. ''For this reason, while we do not forbid that submissions get deposited in preprint repositories or institutional websites, we require authors to do so only after making the submission to NNTDM and after being informed about the results of the antiplagiarism check.''		* '''Note:''' Submissions that have been deposited in preprint repositories prior to the check tend to exhibit very high similarity scores and thus invalidate the quality plagiarism check process. ''For this reason, while we do not forbid that submissions get deposited in preprint repositories or institutional websites, we require authors to do so only after making the submission to NNTDM and after being informed about the results of the antiplagiarism check.''

			=== <font color="#268BD2">Use of ChatGPT</font> ===

			Authors are not allowed to use ChatGPT or any large language model to write their manuscripts. Submissions must reflect the authors’ original input and understanding, and reliance on AI-generated content undermines the integrity and authenticity expected in scholarly research.

	=== <font color="#268BD2">Peer Review Process</font> ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Peer Review Process</font> ===

Vassia Atanassova: /* Peer Review Process */

2025-07-31T12:44:20Z

Peer Review Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 31 July 2025
Line 57:		Line 57:
	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.		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.		In case of unavailable reviewers from the Journal’s own pool of reviewers, the authors may be offered to propose potential independent reviewers with their Scopus profiles and email addresses. Please note that these potential reviewers shall not share the same affiliation and country of residence with any of the coauthors of the submitted manuscript. Further, a Scopus h-index of at least 5 is required. However, the Editorial Office reserves the right to ignore such proposals, if deemed inappropriate, and invite for reviewers other specialists than those proposed.

	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:		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:

Vassia Atanassova: /* Declaration of Originality and Authorship */

2025-04-01T08:33:56Z

Declaration of Originality and Authorship

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:33, 1 April 2025
Line 31:		Line 31:
	#* b) in the context of critical commentary and discussion of the work in question, and		#* 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.		#* 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.
	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.

	\|}		\|}

Vassia Atanassova: /* Submission Templates */ updated 2025 templates

2025-03-06T19:57:09Z

Submission Templates: updated 2025 templates

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:57, 6 March 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Authors are requested to prepare their manuscripts in LaTeX (preferably) or MS Word in the following templates.		Authors are requested to prepare their manuscripts in LaTeX (preferably) or MS Word in the following templates.
	* '''LaTeX''': {{download\|NIFS-TeX-template.zip\|~~Zip (Tex, Pdf)~~\|~~68 Kb~~}}		* '''LaTeX''': {{download\|NIFS-TeX-template-2025.zip\|NIFS-TeX-template-2025.zip \|133}}
	* '''MS Word''': {{download\|NIFS-Word-template.zip\|~~Zip (Doc)~~\|~~16 Kb~~}}		* '''MS Word''': {{download\|NIFS-Word-template-2025.zip\|NIFS-Word-template-2025.zip\|53}}

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

Vassia Atanassova at 14:06, 27 January 2025

2025-01-27T14:06:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:06, 27 January 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{:Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets/header}}		{{:Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets/header}}
	__NOTOC__		__NOTOC__
	= Submission Procedure =		= <font color="#268BD2">Submission Procedure</font> =

	We encourage paper submission by email: <tt><span style="font-size:1.15em; color:#268BD2;">nifs.journal@gmail.com</span></tt>   with copy (CC) to   <tt><span style="font-size:1.15em; color:#268BD2;">k.t.atanassov@gmail.com</span></tt>.		We encourage paper submission by email: <tt><span style="font-size:1.15em; color:#268BD2;">nifs.journal@gmail.com</span></tt>   with copy (CC) to   <tt><span style="font-size:1.15em; color:#268BD2;">k.t.atanassov@gmail.com</span></tt>.
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|- valign="top"		\|- valign="top"
	\|		\|
	== Submission Templates ==		== <font color="#268BD2">Submission Templates</font> ==

	Authors are requested to prepare their manuscripts in LaTeX (preferably) or MS Word in the following templates.		Authors are requested to prepare their manuscripts in LaTeX (preferably) or MS Word in the following templates.
Line 20:		Line 20:
	Submissions that are not typeset in accordance with the templates above will be returned to authors for correction.		Submissions that are not typeset in accordance with the templates above will be returned to authors for correction.

	\|		== <font color="#268BD2">Declaration of Originality and Authorship</font> ==
	== Declaration of Originality and Authorship ==

	Along with the initial manuscript submission, the corresponding (submitting) author is required to provide also a cover letter, which certifies that:		Along with the initial manuscript submission, the corresponding (submitting) author is required to provide also a cover letter, which certifies that:
Line 37:		Line 36:
	\|}		\|}

	= Publishing Ethics Policy =		= <font color="#268BD2">Publishing Ethics Policy </font> =

	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.		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.

	=== Antiplagiarism check ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Antiplagiarism check</font> ===

	As of September 2022, Journal “Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets” has been provided access to the popular [https://strikeplagiarism.com/en/ plagiarism detection software tool StrikePlagiarism] to verify the originality and authorship of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.		As of September 2022, Journal “Notes on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets” has been provided access to the popular [https://strikeplagiarism.com/en/ plagiarism detection software tool StrikePlagiarism] to verify the originality and authorship of the manuscripts submitted to the Journal.
Line 49:		Line 48:
	* '''Note:''' Submissions that have been deposited in preprint repositories prior to the check tend to exhibit very high similarity scores and thus invalidate the quality plagiarism check process. ''For this reason, while we do not forbid that submissions get deposited in preprint repositories or institutional websites, we require authors to do so only after making the submission to NNTDM and after being informed about the results of the antiplagiarism check.''		* '''Note:''' Submissions that have been deposited in preprint repositories prior to the check tend to exhibit very high similarity scores and thus invalidate the quality plagiarism check process. ''For this reason, while we do not forbid that submissions get deposited in preprint repositories or institutional websites, we require authors to do so only after making the submission to NNTDM and after being informed about the results of the antiplagiarism check.''

	=== Peer Review Process ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Peer Review Process</font> ===

	Each paper submission is sent out for peer review to at least two 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.		Each paper submission is sent out for peer review to at least two 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.
Line 73:		Line 72:
	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.		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 ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Post-publication issues</font> ===

	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 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).
Line 88:		Line 87:
	* its impact on the overall integrity of the publication.		* its impact on the overall integrity of the publication.

	=== Other Provisions ===		=== <font color="#268BD2">Other Provisions</font> ===

	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.		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.

	= Authors’ Copyright =		= <font color="#268BD2">Authors’ Copyright</font> =

	Authors, whose papers are published, retain their copyright. Journal readers are allowed to read, download, print, search, link to the full texts of the papers, and use them for any lawful purpose.		Authors, whose papers are published, retain their copyright. Journal readers are allowed to read, download, print, search, link to the full texts of the papers, and use them for any lawful purpose.

Vassia Atanassova: /* Post-publication issues */

2024-08-29T06:02:25Z

Post-publication issues

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:02, 29 August 2024
Line 77:		Line 77:
	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 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.		* 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.

	~~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,
	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.		* the context within the published article, and
			* its impact on the overall integrity of the publication.

	=== Other Provisions ===		=== Other Provisions ===

Vassia Atanassova: /* Peer Review Process */

2024-08-29T05:59:48Z

Peer Review Process

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:59, 29 August 2024
Line 51:		Line 51:
	=== Peer Review Process ===		=== 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.		Each paper submission is sent out for peer review to at least two 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.

	NIFS’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.		NIFS’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.
Line 64:		Line 64:
	* Acceptance		* Acceptance
	* Minor revision		* Minor revision
	* Major revision ~~and reevaluation~~		* Major revision (new review procedure required)
	* Rejection		* Rejection

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

Vassia Atanassova: /* Antiplagiarism check */

2024-08-29T05:56:25Z

Antiplagiarism check

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:56, 29 August 2024
Line 46:		Line 46:

	In due time after the submission, a Technical Editor will perform the antiplagiarism check. Depending on the manuscript’s similarity scores produced by the tool, the manuscript will either be returned to the authors for correction, or it will be desk rejected on the basis of the Journal’s Publication Ethics Policy.		In due time after the submission, a Technical Editor will perform the antiplagiarism check. Depending on the manuscript’s similarity scores produced by the tool, the manuscript will either be returned to the authors for correction, or it will be desk rejected on the basis of the Journal’s Publication Ethics Policy.

			* '''Note:''' Submissions that have been deposited in preprint repositories prior to the check tend to exhibit very high similarity scores and thus invalidate the quality plagiarism check process. ''For this reason, while we do not forbid that submissions get deposited in preprint repositories or institutional websites, we require authors to do so only after making the submission to NNTDM and after being informed about the results of the antiplagiarism check.''

	=== Peer Review Process ===		=== Peer Review Process ===