Editorial Policy

Professional Conduct and Publication Ethics

HJCST is committed to high standards for professional conduct and ethical behavior in all published material. Accordingly, authors, reviewers, and editors have a responsibility to maintain high ethical standards by following virtuous scientific practice.

Authors

Any manuscript submitted for publication should represent significant progress in the field under study, as well as being presented in the context of previously published work by giving due reference, especially to the latest reputable publication. The information reported in a manuscript should be scientifically rigorous, reported truthfully, and documented so that other researchers may reproduce the results.

All sources of funding (if there is any) must be revealed for the work presented in the manuscript.

For more information see - Author Guidelines

Reviewers

HJCST identify reviewers with at most care. Reviewers are entrusted to give informed, fair, and objective recommendations regarding publication of a manuscript. He or she may not spread or make use of privileged and confidential information obtained from the manuscript.

For more information see - Reviewers Guideline

Editors (Editorial Board)

HJCST strives to make a responsible and objective decision regarding publication, without bias. Where a personal conflict of interest arises, editors will refrain from handling such manuscripts. Editors will check instances of plagiarism, data fabrication, image/data manipulation to falsify/enhance results, manipulation of the reviewing process, duplicate submission, and other misconduct concerning published articles and manuscripts under consideration.

Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts are subject to assessment by the editors and/or peer review. Manuscripts are rejected by the editors at the first stage if they are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, need extensive improvement in the language, or do not fall within the aims and scope of the journal.

Manuscripts of potential interest to the journal’s readership are sent for peer- review. Manuscripts are typically sent to at least two reviewers, though editors have the option of seeking additional reviewers when needed. The editor then decides whether to accept, reject, or request revisions based on the reviews and comments received.

Potential reviewers are identified based on various factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations by the authors or other reviewers, and previous experience of a reviewer's characteristics. Reviewer’s identities will not be released to authors or to other reviewers unless a reviewer voluntarily signs his/her comments to the authors.

Privacy and Security

HJCST promise to protect personal information of authors and reviewers at all times by taking all appropriate measures. Personal information is only accessible to our personnel in order to avoid illegal access, modification, or misuse. We have strict security protocols in place to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of your data. Additionally, we regularly update our systems to safeguard against any potential threats or breaches.

For more information see -Privacy Statements

Plagiarism Statement

The HiLCoE Journal of Computer science and technology does not tolerate any form of plagiarism. Authors are expected to make sure that their submission is free of plagiarism. All manuscripts will be subject to testing using plagiarism detection software prior to acceptance.

Copyright

Once an article is submitted and accepted for publication, it is assumed that the author is transferring a copyright to give publication rights to the journal

Conflicts of interest

When manuscripts are shared with reviewers, any personal identifiers of author(s) are removed. When invited to review an article, reviewers are requested to disclose any suspected conflicts of interest, which may include financial interest, history of joint publication, personal disagreement with the author(s) and so on.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they feel that the decision to reject was based on either a significant misunderstanding of a core aspect of the manuscript, a failure to understand how the manuscript advances the literature or concerns regarding the manuscript-handling process. To raise an appeal, authors may contact the journal by email, quoting the manuscript ID number and explaining your rationale for the appeal. The editorial board decision following an appeal consideration is final.

Corrections

If you find an error in your article published in the journal, please submit a correction statement (including revised text and display items as needed) via e-mail to the editorial office. The editorial team will assess its suitability for publication, potentially following further peer review as needed.