Journal of Advances in Mechanical Engineering and Science (JAMES) follows the ethical policies during publication set out by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and available on its website .


All authors are expected to adhere to the following guidelines when submitting manuscript to our journal:

  • The article represents the authors own original work.
  • The article is not being considered or reviewed by any other publication.
  • The article has not been published elsewhere in the same or a similar form. This includes publication of an article in different languages and the reuse of substantial portions of articles without acknowledgement of prior publication.
  • All authors are aware of and have consented to the submission and declared any potential conflict of interest – be it professional or financial – which could be held to arise with respect to the article.
  • All authors fulfil the requirements for authorship.
  • Authors must cite all relevant publications that have been used in or influenced the work, including their own previously published articles.
  • Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion, should only be used and reported with written permission from the source and acknowledged as a personal communication.
  • The article contains no libellous, defamatory or unlawful statements.
  • When necessary, submit corrigenda in a timely and responsible fashion.
  • Expect to sign a copyright assignment form on acceptance of their work, which will assume that the author is empowered to assign copyright to the publisher.
  • Co-operate fully with the publication of errata and with the retraction of articles found to be unethical, misleading or damaging.
  • If asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers, authors must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.
  • How to handle authorship disputes: a  COPE guide for new researchers 


Taking different aspects into consideration peer reviewer will be selected. This may include expertise, affiliation, and experienced reviewers, reviewers suggested by the authors or editors. All reviewers are expected to adhere to the following guidelines when reviewing the manuscript, which submitted to our journal:

  • All the reviewers should be aware that the data of the assigned manuscript has to be maintained confidentially.
  • Only accept invitations to review work that is relevant to their own expertise and speciality.
  • Seek advice from the editor if anything is unclear at the time of invitation.
  • Review submitted work in a responsible, impartial and timely manner.
  • Report any suspected ethical misconduct as part of a thorough and honest review of the work.
  • Avoid the use of unnecessarily inflammatory or offensive language in their appraisal of the work.
  • If the article is appropriate it will be given approval to editor by the reviewer. In the case of rejection the reviewer need to give a clear explanation to the author about the reasons that intended him to reject the manuscript. He/her also need to explain what changes can be done in order to publish the article.
  • Efficient and timely editorial processes are very important during the publication.
  • Accept the commitment to review future versions of the work and provide follow up advice to the editor(s), if requested.
  • Remain in good communication with both the publisher and the editor.
  • COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers 


Being an editor, he/she should carry out their responsibilities with much dedication to improve the quality of the journal. It is advisable to oversee the journal policies time to time and assisting the publisher in maintaining the journal quality towards serving the scientific community. Editors to be followed:

  • To improve the ways of journal processes, the editor should actively seek the views of editorial board members, reviewers, authors.
  • Encourage research into peer review, technological advances and reassess journal processes in the light of new discoveries.
  • JAMES welcomes their editor suggestions in providing appropriate resources, guidance from experts and training to perform the publisher role in a professional manner and improve the quality of the journal.
  • Encourage initiatives designed to prevent research misconduct and educate researchers about publication ethics.
  • Encourages submission of quality articles to the journal by personally recruiting authors, assisting them with outreach, and ensuring the marketing plan is executed.
  • Ensures feedback provided to authors is constructive, fair, and timely.
  • Should determine whether a submitted manuscript is appropriate for the journal.
  • Article submitted for peer review is a privileged communication that should be treated in confidence, taking care to guard the author identity and work.
  • Recruit high profile reviewers using multiple sources, e.g., personal recommendations, Web databases, published choice review.
  • Should monitor the process of peer review and take steps to ensure this is of high standard.
  • Communicate with reviewers as regularly as possible, according to their availability and give them clear instructions in maintaining quality of the journal.
  • Avoid conflicts of interest when making assignments. Check whether reviewer has history of conflict with author.
  • Should encourage reviewers to comment on- ethical questions and possible research and publication misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
  • The originality of article submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
  • Ensure to rewrite content when required (Typographical errors, incorrect line or page breaks, Spelling errors, Errors in grammar and syntax, Errors in word usage, graphs, the styling of tables, and other art, including their labels, captions, and text mentions, Ambiguous vocabulary and syntax).
  • Editors can comment on any issues related to the scientific content of the manuscript.
  • Should communicate directly with the author and the review team.
  • Recommend acceptance or rejection of the articles considered for publication to the journal Editor.
  • Should be able to resolve any conflicts.
  • Sharing of Information Among Editors-in-Chief Regarding Possible Misconduct
  • Text recycling guidelines for editors
  • A Short Guide to Ethical Editing for New Editors
  • Guidance for Editors: Research, Audit and Service Evaluations

About Peer-Review process

JAMES aims at rapid publication of high quality research while maintaining rigorous but sympathetic peer review process. Manuscripts (other than those that are of insufficient quality or unlikely to be competitive enough for publication) will be peer-reviewed by two or more experts in the fields, and a decision is returned to the authors within weeks. If due to special circumstance, the review process takes more time, authors will be informed by email. Manuscripts with significant results will be reviewed and published at the highest priority and speed. Possible decisions on a manuscript are:

  • accepted as it is
  • accepted after minor revision
  • accepted after major revision
  • rejected

If minor revision is required, authors should return a revised version as soon as possible within one week. If major revision is required, authors should return a revised version within two to three weeks.


Confidentiality is highly maintained by JAMES Editors about the submitted manuscript details and do not comment out to any other organizations when the manuscript is under the process of review or if it is rejected. Journal editors may speak out on the published articles but their comments are restricted to the content and the evaluation process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly. 


There is no universally agreed definition of authorship. As a minimum, authors should take responsibility for a particular section of the study. The award of authorship should balance intellectual contributions to the conception, design, analysis and writing of the study against the collection of data and other routine work. If there is no task that can reasonably be attributed to a particular individual, then that individual will not be credited with authorship. All authors must take public responsibility for the content of their paper. The multidisciplinary nature of much research can make this difficult, but this may be resolved by the disclosure of individual contributions. All authors should have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study, or acquisition of data, or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted. 


This policy is concerned with the addition, deletion, or rearrangement of author names in the authorship of accepted manuscripts. Before the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue, requests to add or remove an author, or to rearrange the author names, must be sent to the Journal Manager from the corresponding author of the accepted manuscript and must include: (a) the reason for addition or removal, or the rearrangement of the author names and (b) written confirmation (e-mail, fax, letter) from all authors that they agree with the addition, removal or rearrangement. In case of addition or removal of authors, this includes confirmation from the author being added or removed. Requests that are not sent by the corresponding author will be forwarded by the Journal Manager to the corresponding author, who must follow the procedure as described above. Note that: (1) the Journal Managers will inform the Journal Editors about any such requests and (2) publication of the accepted manuscript in an online issue is suspended until authorship has been agreed. 

After the accepted manuscript is published in an online issue, any requests to add, delete, or rearrange author names in an article published in an online issue will follow the same policies as noted above and result in a corrigendum.


The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) must be used to cite and link to electronic documents. The DOI consists of a unique alpha-numeric character string which is assigned to a document by the publisher upon the initial electronic publication. The assigned DOI never changes