Ethics

In its publication ethics policy the Journal follows the basic principles of international institutions for scientific publication ethics:

The people involved in preparing materials for publication in the Journal should follow the recommended publication ethics standards. In case of any question the Editorial Board will follow the COPE Instructions.

Pipeline Science and Technology is a peer reviewed, open access journal where the Pipeline Transport Institute pays for the publishing costs incurred by the journal. Authors do not have to pay any Article Processing Charge or Open Access Publication Fee.

All articles published open access will be immediately and permanently free for everyone to read, download, copy and distribute. Permitted reuse is defined by the following user license:

Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC): for non-commercial purposes, lets others distribute and copy the article, and to include in a collective work, as long as they give appropriate credit (with a link to the formal publication through the relevant DOI) and provided they do not alter or modify the article.The full details of the license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

If you need to comply with your funding body policy you can apply for a CC BY license after your manuscript is accepted for publication.

For open access publishing, this journal uses a copyright transfer agreement. Authors will transfer copyright to the Pipeline Transport Institute, but will have the right to share their article in the same ways permitted to third parties under the relevant user license, as well as certain scholarly usage rights.

The Pipeline Science and Technology (PST) follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE's Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing) recommendations regarding advertising policy. The Editorial Office considers advertising and sponsorship opportunities, as a means to provide value to our readers.

1). Advertising doesn’t influence editorial content in any way;

2). Published ads do not imply or indicate that advertised content is endorsed or supported by the publisher;

3). All advertising must be an accurate description of the product or service;

4). Advertising in all journal publications should be provided in form that doesn’t resemble editorial content and can be easily distinguishable from it;

5). The full rules for any market research or promotion associated with an advertisement must be displayed in the ad or available via a prominent link;

6). Editors have final judgement regarding the positioning and suitability of an advertisement; reserving the right to exclude advertisements;

7). PST does not include advertising in the body of the article content; only at the front and rear of the journal;

8). PST will not publish advertisements from unethical sources;

9). PST endeavours to publish advertisements that are compliant to regulations in all countries of distribution. Advertisers are always made aware of geographic distribution.

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

The Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement of the journal Pipeline Science and Technology are based on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct guidelines available at www.publicationethics.org,  and requirements for peer-reviewed journals, elaborated by Web of Science and SCOPUS (in accordance with international ethical rules of scientific publications).

Duties of Editor-in-chief

The Editor-in-Chief of Pipeline Science and Technology makes an initial evaluation of each submitted manuscript by using appropriate means to examine the originality of the contents of the submitted manuscripts. In evaluating the submitted manuscripts, the editor-in-chief should limit himself only to the intellectual content and he should not be partial by matters such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. If the submitted manuscript passes this test, it is assigned to a section editor who forward it to two reviewers for double-blind peer review, and each of whom will make a recommendation to publish the article in its present form or to modify or to reject it. The review period will be no more than 2 months, delays in obtaining reviews may prolong this period. Once the review process has been completed, the section editor recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection of the manuscript. The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. The decision will involve input from a Section Editor, volunteer reviewers, and when necessary, consultation with the Journal’s Editorial Board. A decision on the manuscript generally may be expected within 3 to 4 months. The Editor-in-Chief must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.

Duties of Authors

When submitting a manuscript to journal Pipeline Science and Technology submitting author(s) must ensure that the manuscript is their original work, is not plagiarized, wholly or in part. They must also make sure that the submitted article has not been previously published, nor is currently being considered for publication elsewhere, or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor, and that the work of others is properly cited. The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic requirements outlined in the Author Guidelines of journal of Pipeline Science and Technology.  Finally, it is also the responsibility of submitting author(s) to check that all copyrighted material within the article has permission for publication and that material for which the author does not personally hold copyright is not reproduced without permission.

Duties of Reviewers

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. They must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the Editor-in-Chief if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side. It is also the duties of reviewers to keep all unpublished manuscripts, and related materials, confidential. Manuscripts can only be shared with others with the permission of the editors. A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should complete their review within the specified time frame. If additional time is necessary, they should inform the section editor of a delay. Reviewers may decline to review a manuscript for any reason.

Editors and Editorial Board members, as well as Reviewers themselves, are encouraged to refer to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which describe the basic principles and standards to which all Reviewers should adhere during the peer review process.

All manuscripts must be submitted online. The author will be guided through the online process, and be able to track the progress of the manuscript. 
For further details about the preparation of the files for submission, please see Submission Guidelines and   Author Guidelines.

The author who completes the submission will be designated as the corresponding author and will be responsible for handling communications with the Editorial Office of Pipeline Science and Technology (PST). The corresponding author has full authority to speak for all other authors regarding withdrawal of a manuscript or correction or retraction of a published article.

All manuscripts submitted to PST for publication are double-blind peer-reviewed according to the following procedure:

Editorial Office Assessment: The Editorial Office will check whether the composition and format of the paper comply with the Author Guidelines and Submission Guidelines, to ensure it includes the required sections and styles. If the manuscript fails to meet one or more requirements, the Editorial Office will return it to the authors for amendments within one week. This may occur in the case of submission of clearly plagiarized or previously published papers, as well as of papers that fall outside the scope of the Journal, are not innovative or are of low relevance for readers. If the manuscript meets all requirements, the Editor in Chief will assign it to an Associate Editor with relevant expertise, who will be responsible for managing the peer review process.

Peer Review: The manuscripts that pass the initial review are assigned to reviewers. Each paper undergoes evaluations by at least two reviewers of the respected field. The review process is conducted anonymously. PST does not reveal the identity of the reviewers to the authors and vice versa in order to implement the double blind peer-review process. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, content, soundness among others. The reviewers are asked to complete their reports within the deadline established by the editor. They are expected to be balanced and consistently fair in evaluating papers and their reports should be analytical and constructive. The review is submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper or with a request for revision (major or minor), that should be well substantiated and justified.
If major issues are identified on first reading the manuscript, the reviewer to reject the paper without further input.

Final decision: After assessment of the manuscript, one of the following recommendations is made:

1). Accepted – the manuscript satisfies all publication parameters and is worthy of publication; 

2). Accepted, with revisions - further revision of the manuscript is required in order to satisfy all parameters (a deadline for submission of the revised version is set);

3). Rejected, specifying the reason for rejections - the paper fails to satisfy key parameters and it is highly unlikely that further work can address its shortcomings.

Authors may be asked by the Editorial Manager at all times during the editorial process to revise a contribution in order to maintain scientific standards and comply with the journal’s author guidelines and submission guidelines.

To enable speedy handling of the manuscript, during the submission process the author must provide the names and e-mail addresses of at least three potential reviewers (note that the editor has right to decide whether or not to use the people suggested). The author may also exclude a limited number of researchers as potential reviewers of the manuscript (maximum three people).

The Editorial Office sends a decision email to the corresponding author with the relevant reviewer comments. All comments and related files will be provided in an anonymous form. If a paper is accepted, it is sent to production. Reviewers will receive an email informing them of the outcome of their review. If rejected, the paper is removed from the online system. Reviewers will receive an email informing them of the final decision.

Appeals
If an author believes that the editorial decision reached for the manuscript is not fair, he/she may contact the Editorial Office at describing in detail the reasons for appeal. The Editorial Office will evaluate all requests and make a final decision.

No publication fee is charged for papers published in Pipeline Science and Technology. Article processing charges are not applied.

Publication of articles and other materials in the journal does not entail any royalty to the authors thereof.

This journal utilizes the Internet Archive Library ARCHIVE.ORG to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration.

Pipeline Sciecne and Technology (PST) allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints or publisher's version/PDF in Open-Access institutional archives, repositories, or personal websites. The primary benefit of pre- and post-print self-archiving is reaching a larger audience which enhances the visibility and impact of your research.

Authors should disclose details of preprint posting, including DOI and licensing terms, upon submission of the manuscript or at any other point during consideration at PST journal. Once the preprint is published, it is the author’s responsibility to ensure that the preprint record is updated with a publication reference, including the DOI and a URL link to the published version of the article on the journal website.

The Journal requires manuscripts to be accompanied by clear disclosures from all authors of any past and present affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships related to the reported research that might raise questions about possible sources of bias. Patents (whether applications or awards to the authors or home institutions) related to the work should also be declared. Before manuscript acceptance, authors will be asked to sign an authorship/conflict-of-interest form.

All authors should declare any conflict of interests related to the manuscript, these interests include but not limited to commercial, personal, political and intellectual aspects. All editors, editorial staff and reviewers should also report potential conflict of interests related to the submissions they are working with.

Reviewers and authors are required to reveal any possible conflict of interests before taking up the review. In case of revealing of concealment of information regarding any possible conflict of interests and (or) providing the unauthentic information, the author may be refused in publication.

The Editorial Board assures the absent of any conflict of interests during the peer-review procedure. In case of conflict of interests the Editorial Board assures to take any measure possible to eliminate it.

The unattributed copying of another published or unpublished work, or the theft of the ideas of another researcher is considered a serious offence. If suspected authors will be contacted and – if under review – the article will be held until the issue is resolved. Note that all articles are checked for plagiarism when submitted.

If plagiarism is identified, the COPE guidelines on plagiarism will be followed.

Corrections and retractions

The Pipeline Science and Technology (PST) operates the following policy for making corrections to the print and online versions of its peer-reviewed content.

Publishable amendments that affect the publication record and/or the scientific accuracy of published information receive a DOI and are published in print and online in the journal. Four categories of amendments are relevant for peer-reviewed material: Erratum (Publisher Correction), Corrigendum (Author Correction), Retraction or Addendum. All four correction types are bi-directionally linked to the original published paper. Detailed information on each amendment category follows below.

Erratum (Publisher Correction). Notification of an important error made by the journal that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or of the journal.  An Erratum is a statement by the authors of the original paper that briefly describes any correction(s) resulting from errors or omissions. Any effects on the conclusions of the paper should be noted. The corrected article is not removed from the online journal, but notice of erratum is given. The Erratum is made freely available to all readers and is linked to the corrected article.

Corrigendum (Author Correction). Notification of an important error made by the author(s) that affects the publication record or the scientific integrity of the paper, or the reputation of the authors or the journal. 

Addendum. Notification of additional information about a paper. Addenda are published when the editors decide that the addendum is crucial to the reader's understanding of a significant part of the published contribution. Addenda include Editorial Expression of Concern, which is an editorial statement alerting our readership to serious concerns with the published paper. Editorial Expression of Concern are typically updated with another amendment once further information is available.  

Retraction. Notification of invalid results that affect the reliability of a previously published article. The original article is marked as retracted but remains available to readers, and the retraction statement notifying readers of the invalidity of the published paper is bi-directionally linked to the original published paper. The retraction notice will be issued if: the Editor has clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g.data fabrication) or honest error (e.g.miscalculation or experimental error); the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication); the publication constitutes plagiarism the publication reports unethical research.

For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article and the article will be clearly marked as retracted (including the PDF).

Editor's Note. An editor's note is a statement from editors notifying readers of issues related to the published paper. It is an update made only to the online version of record of the published article. 

For further information on professional standards in publishing, see the website of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) at http://publicationethics.org.