The editorial office of Computer Engineering has established the following publication ethics in accordance with the ethical standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and referencing the ethical norms of other journals in the same field.

Ethical guidelines for reviewers

(1) Peer reviewers help editors decide the acceptance or rejection of submissions, and help authors improve the quality of their works.

(2) Reviewers should identify the sources of data in the submissions. Should plagiarism or duplicate submissions and publications be found, it is the reviewer’s obligation to notify the editors.

(3) Reviewers must give unbiased appraisements to each submitted manuscript, and the appraisements should be based on sufficient arguments.

(4) Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

(5) Any manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others without the authorization of editors and authors.

(6) The information acquired during the review process must be kept confidential, and unauthorized use of the information is not allowed. Reviewer must not reject a submission for interest conflicts reasons such as competition and collaboration. 

(7) If review cannot be completed on time, it is the reviewer’s obligation to inform editors, so that the manuscript can be reassigned to other reviewers.

(8) Reviewers shall disclose to the editorial office and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript when any of the following competing interests or potential conflicts of interest exist with the author(s) or their affiliated institutions:
       1. Current employment at the same institution as any author;
       2. Serving as a mentor/student, close collaborator, or co-sponsor with any author within the past three years;
       3. Personal relationships with authors (e.g., family members, friends);
       4. Substantial similarity between the manuscript under review and the reviewer’s own work intended for publication elsewhere, or any direct/indirect financial interest existing with the manuscript under review.
      Upon identifying such conflicts, reviewers must notify the editorial office and promptly withdraw from the review process without retaining or copying the manuscript.

Ethical guidelines for editors

(1) Editors can receive, reject or require modification of a manuscript according to the review comments of reviewers and the review reports of editorial board.

(2) Editors should evaluate a manuscript in the light of their importance, originality, clarity and relevancy to the journal, without regard to race, gender, religion or nationality.

(3) Editors must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone outside of the peer review process.

(4) Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own work without the written permission of the author.

(5) Editors have an obligation to investigate academic misconduct in submitted or published articles. Once an academic misconduct complaint related to an article is received, editors must handle the case following the “Academic Misconduct Process”, which might lead to clarification, publication correction, retraction, or an apology.

(6) Editors shall conscientiously recuse themselves from handling manuscripts with which they have potential conflicts of interest, including but not limited to current employment at the same institution as any author, and personal relationships with authors (e.g., family members, friends).

(7) Editors shall refrain from assigning reviewers who have competing interests with any of the authors.

(8) Editors must ensure editorial decisions about whether to accept a manuscript are made independently of authors’ waiver status.