JOURNAL PAPER GUIDELINES:
- Submission Preparation Checklist:
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The submission has not been previously published, nor is it before another journal for consideration (or an explanation has been provided in Comments to the Editor).
- The submission file is in Microsoft Word file format,we do not accept PDF submissions.
- The text is single-spaced; uses a 12-point Times NewRoman font; employs regular upright, rather than underlining (except with URL addresses); and all illustrations, figures, and tables are placed within the text at the appropriate points, rather than at the end.
- Author Guidelines:
- Manuscript should be original, not submitted and/or published elsewhere. Manuscripts for publication will be selected considering scientific merit and significance to the field.
- Ideal length of manuscript is expected to be within 5,000 words. It should be in MS Word file format, A4 size page with 25 mm margins in all sides, font type Times NewRoman and font size of 12, and single spaced. All the lines should be numbered continuously.
- All manuscripts should be prepared in English language. If the author(s) wants to publish article in any other language, an English abstract is a must.
- Title should be concise, not more than three lines, within 20 words, and reflect truly the contents in the manuscript.
- Authors details should appear right below the title. It includes name, affiliation, and email address of each author. Corresponding author should be indicated with asterisk (*) mark and details of the corresponding author including email should be provided.
- Abstract: A very concise abstract with a maximum length of 250 words should be inserted after authors details.
- Keywords – insert 3-5 keywordsafter abstract in alphabetical order.
- Main body of the manuscript is expected to have introduction, materials and methods, results and discussion, and conclusions. However, depending upon nature of the manuscript, authors may structure in different way as well.
- Sections/sub-sections: Manuscripts are expected to be divided into appropriate sections and sub-sections. They are numbered like 1, 1.1, and 1.1.1. No more than three level of sub-divisions are allowed. Abstract, keywords, acknowledgements, and references are not numbered.
- Table and Figure – each table and figure should have adequate resolution [minimum of 300 dpi], embedded right in the manuscript at appropriate location, and have clear and concise captions. Table/Figure should be numbered sequentially as 1, 2, etc.
- Equations – All equations should be numbered sequentially as 1, 2, etc. They should be prepared using MS Word’s built in “Equation Editor”.
- References and citations – please follow Harvard Style.
- Submission – Manuscripts should be submitted using online system(https://pec.edu.np). New authors are required to register to get user ID and password, and then log into the system before making submissions OR, we can mail to rmc@pec.edu.np. The manuscript should be prepared following the Guidelines, and using the attached Template.
- Use thisTemplate for manuscript.(link to be provided here https://files.fm/u/hqmpkp9djb)
3. Peer-Review Statement
- This journal performs double-blind peer-review process, in which the identities of the authors and reviewers are not revealed.
- After electronic submission, Journal publication committee will assign manuscript number, removes authors information, and makes it ready to review, within a week. The protocol for assigning manuscript number will be: Pokhara Engineering College (PEC) Journal – Year of Submission (4 digits, e. g. 2024) – Areas of submission (1 digit, 1 of 5 areas: 1 – Civil Engineering, 2 – Computer, IT and Computing, 3–Architecture and Built Environment, 4 – Electrical/Electronics’Engineering5 – Others group) – Submission Serial Number of the year (4 digits). Example: A manuscript number of PEC Journal-2024-1-0001 indicates the 1st submission to this journal in 2024, and the submission is in the area of Civil Engineering.
- Editor-in-Chief or one of the Editors evaluates submitted manuscript for suitability for peer-review. If it’s evaluated as outside aims and scope of journal or insufficiently original or have fundamental scientific flaws or poorly structured (content-wise and language-wise), it is rejected outright by Editors. This process generally takes two weeks.
- After the manuscript is evaluated as suitable for peer-review, it is forwarded to at least two suitable reviewers (academic, research and professional experts) for peer review. This process generally takes 4-6 weeks. However, depending upon response of reviewers and need to go for several reviewers, it might take longer as well.
- Upon receiving of feedback from reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief takes decision on the submission. The decision could be one of following:
- Accepted – Accept as it is
- Minor revision – Mainly editorial revisions without substantial revision in results/manuscript required.
- Major revision – Significant improvements are required in the entire manuscript
- Reject – Not suitable to publish in the journal:
- The Editor-in-Chief will communicate the decision with Authors. The decision in general will be provided within 2 weeks from the date of required reviewers are completed.
- If the decision is to revise, Authors are expected to submit revised manuscript, with response to reviewer’s comments within four weeks.
- The revised submission may also go another round of review depending upon extent of revision suggested by reviewers.
- The Journal Publication committee reserves the right to edit, if necessary for typographical errors correction, grammar, style and length.
4.Copyright Notice
Copyright is held by the authors.
Code of Conduct for Reviewers
The following set of practices is regarded as the code of conduct for reviewers:
- All researchers are consider for peer-reviewing of manuscripts as a professional responsibility.
- When approached to review, the reviewer must agree to review only if he/she has the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in his/her assessment. Expertise includes a track record of research publication and knowledge about the current state of research in the area of review.
- The reviewer must be familiar with the issues related to research ethics, best practices in research, research misconduct and the latest tools and technology to detect plagiarism.
- The reviewer must disclose any competing interests. Competing interest is particularly relevant in the open review process. However, it might also be relevant in a blind review if the reviewer can identify the author(s) of the article. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, or political in nature.
- Reviewers must do the review professionally following the guidance for reviewer provided by the journal. If a reviewer feels that he/she does not have enough expertise, he/she should decline to review and inform the editor.
- Recommendation for the acceptance of the manuscript must be based on the originality of the article and its potentiality to contribute to the existing knowledge in the area of study.
- Reviewers must make sincere effort to complete the task within the time-frame agreed upon.
- Reviewers must act responsibly maintaining the confidentiality of the review process, documents, research subjects and authors if known.
Code of Conduct for Editors
The following set of practices is regarded as the core code of conduct for editors:
- Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals regarding academic responsibility and quality, including authors’ compliance with integrity and ethics.
- Editors must adhere to journal policies and publication ethics.
- Editors must ensure that contributors follow the publication ethics.
- Editors must ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review wherever applicable).
- Editors must maintain a roster of qualified reviewers or have a mechanism to search for the most suitable reviewer for a particular submission.
- Editors must provide the reviewer guidance on reviewing, code of conduct for reviewers and best practices, which, among other things, include the disclosure of potential competing interests.
- Editors must respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission if these are well-reasoned and practicable.
- Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the duly conducted peer-review report on paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
- Editors should have a system in place to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system, which is declared to authors and reviewers in advance.
- In cases of disputes regarding misconduct, competing interests, and authorship, editors should follow the Dispute Resolution Flowchart to resolve the issue.
- Editors should publish relevant competing interests for all contributors and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
- Editors should regularly review the policies of the journal and make them public through the journal.
Peer Review Process
The peer review process is done by the experts in the related field in order to maintain and ensure the high quality for the publication of journal. Decision on acceptance or rejection will be made by journal editors or the journal’s editorial board upon the recommendation of reviewers. Indeed, it is the journal editorial board who is considered to be central to the decision making process.
-
- The journal accepts manuscripts through electronic form. Manuscript is submitted through e–mail attachment to the Editor–in–Chief at hijase@pu.edu.np.
- The Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Secretary first evaluates all the submitted manuscripts. Generally, manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two academic and research experts for peer review. If necessary, there will be an option for third review.
- The journal will contact national and international experts from other universities, institutions, journals, or organizations to ensure impartiality, transparency, and diversity of the peer review process. The editorial board then matches the referees to the paper according to their area of concentration and expertise whenever possible. The journal employs double blind reviewing where referees remain anonymous to the authors and vice-versa throughout the review process.
- The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees involved. Usually, these are cases where referee reports contradict each other or where delays of referee reports are unavoidable. To expedite the process, the journal disseminates the manuscripts immediately and set deadlines for the assigned referees. In cases of contradictory referee reports, the editorial board has the final decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
- Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes the final decision based on the several possibilities indicated below.
- Full acceptance, with or without minor revision
- Conditional acceptance, with major revisions(invite the author to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns before a final decision is made)
- Reject, with specific reasons with inclusion of reviewers comments but indicate to the authors that further improvements might justify a resubmission
- Reject outright, usually on the grounds of lack of novelty and originality, insufficient theoretical and conceptual advancement, and major technical or interpretational problems of the manuscript.
- For conditionally accepted manuscripts, the editor board has full authority to accept or reject of any manuscripts after full revisions. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author.
Pokhara Engineering Collage
Phirke 08 Pokhara Nepal
+977 061-581209/575926
