Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

JEMIS (Journal of Engineering & Management in Industrial System) facilitates the publication of scientific articles in the field of Industrial Engineering. The published articles in Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System can be the result of research and literature review.  Some of the topics are including:
•    Business and strategy; decision analysis
•    Engineering economy; cost estimation
•    Environmental issues
•    Facility location; layout; design; materials handling
•    Human factors; ergonomics; safety
•    Human resources management
•    ICT and information systems
•    Innovation; knowledge management; organizational learning
•    Inventory; logistics; transportation; supply chain management
•    Manufacturing; control; automation
•    Product/process design and management
•    Forecasting; production planning/control
•    Project/operations management; scheduling
•    Service systems/management; performance analysis; modeling/simulation
•    Quality Management ;

•   Reliability/maintenance engineering

Section Policies

Articles

Open Submissions

Indexed

Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Each manuscript submitted to Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System that meet our basic criteria will be peer-reviewed by at least two reviewers in the related topic. Chief editor will make final decision according to the comments of reviewers. The result may be accepted with no revision, accepted with minor revision(s), accepted with major revision(s), or rejected. Certain information about accepted and published article or rejected article is given to the author(s) by email. The author(s) have opportunity to correct the article based on reviewers’ suggestions. The accepted articles will be available online (free download) following the journal peer-reviewing process.

Publication Frequency

JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) is a peer-reviewed and online journal that published as semester (2 issues) journal per year.

Open Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system 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. More...

Publishing Timeline

2 Weeks

Time to First Decision

4-8 Weeks

Review Time

Publication Ethics

Statement
JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) is a peer-reviewed journal published by Universitas Brawijaya which is committed to maintaining the highest publication ethics standards and taking all necessary precautions to prevent malpractive in the publication. This statement clarifies the ethical behavior for all parties involved in the publication process in this journal, including the author, the editor, reviewer and publisher. The publication ethics in ths journal is reffer to the COPE Website. It is our duty to publish original work that is valuable to the academic community in the finest format and to the highest standards. We hold both our reviewers and authors to the same high standards. One of the key qualities that enables us to accomplish our mission is honesty. Honesty, originality, and fair dealing on the part of writers as well as fairness, impartiality, and secrecy on the part of editors and reviewers JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards in regards to moral issues, mistakes, and retractions, as well as to provide legal advice where required.

Allegation of Research Misconduct
Research misconduct refers to fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in the creation, performance, or review of research as well as in the article-writing process by authors or in the dissemination of study findings. Editors have a duty to preserve the truth and integrity of the scientific record when authors are discovered to have engaged in research misconduct or other major irregularities regarding papers that have been published in scientific journals.
The Editors and Editorial Board will use COPE's best practices when investigating allegations of misconduct to help them fairly deal with the situation. The Editors will also look into the claim as part of this. If such misbehavior is discovered in a paper that has been submitted, it will be rejected. If such misbehavior is discovered in a study that has already been published, a retraction can be published with a link to the original publication.
First, assessing the validity of the claim and whether it complies with the criteria of research misconduct constitutes. This also entails figuring out whether the people who face allegations of misbehavior have relevant conflicts of interest.
Allegations are discussed with the corresponding author, who is asked to reply in-depth on behalf of all coauthors if there is a chance that there was scientific misconduct or other significant research issues. Following accepting and evaluation of the response, further examination and consultation with specialists in the field (such as statisticians) may be sought. Clarifications, new evaluations, or both, published as letters to the editor, frequently including a correction notice and revision to the published article, in situations when it is doubtful that misconduct occurred.
Institutions are expected to investigate claims properly and completely. The veracity of the scientific record must ultimately be ensured by authors, journals, and organizations. JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) will continue to uphold the duties of guaranteeing the validity and integrity of the scientific record by appropriately responding to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on the evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, and retractions with replacement.

Complaints and Appeals
JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) will have a defined process for dealing with complaints against the publication, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. The complaints will be explained to the respected person in regard to the complaint case. The range of complaints includes anything pertaining to the journal business process, such as the editorial process, found citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer, peer-review manipulation, etc. The processing of the complaint cases will follow COPE regulations.

Ethical Oversight
In order to keep the ethical standards for research involving human and animal subjects, the author must explicitly state in the manuscript if the study involves chemicals, people, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any unusual risks inherent in their use. The Authors must, if requested by the association or legal organization, provide legal and ethical clearance.
Whether or not the data or information will be hidden securely depends on whether the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices.
The duties and responsibilities of Editors, Authors, and Reviewers are defined by JEMIS (Journal of Engineering and Management in Industrial System) and are provided below in order to ensure best publication practices.

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors

a. Publication Decisions
Editors make sure that every manuscript submitted is subjected to peer review by at least two expert before it is accepted for publication. The decision to publish or reject a manuscript submitted to the journal rests with the Principal Editor, who also considers the validity of the work, its significance to readers and researchers, the reviewers' comments, and any applicable laws pertaining to libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. During this decision-making process, the Editor may consult with additional editors or reviewers.

b. Fair Play
Editors evaluate submitted manuscripts based on their academic merit (importance, originality, study validity, and clarity), as well as their applicability to the journal's scope, without taking into account the author's race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religion, political philosophy, or institutional affiliation. Governmental or other external agencies' policies are not taken into account when making editorial or publication decisions. The Principal Editor has complete control over the editorial calendar for the journal as well as all editorial content.

c. Confidentiality
The corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, are the only parties to whom editors and other editorial staff may reveal information about a submitted manuscript.

d. Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Without the author's approval, editors will not use unpublished information revealed in a submitted work for their own research needs. Editors will maintain the confidentiality of any privileged information or ideas they acquire while handling the manuscript and will not exploit them for their own benefit. Editors will ask another member of the editorial board to handle manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, competitive, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, businesses, or institutions associated with the papers.

e. Management of unethical behavior(s)
Editors and publisher should take rationally responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented regarding a submitted manuscript or published article. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Duties and Responsibilities of Authors

a. Reporting Standards
Authors of original research should give a truthful account of the results, followed by an objective discussion of the work's significance. The manuscript should include enough specifics and citations to allow other authors to replicate the work. Review articles should be accurate, impartial, and comprehensive. False or deliberately inaccurate statements are unacceptable and constitute unethical behavior.

b. Data access and retention
The raw data related to a paper must be provided by the authors for editorial review. They must also be willing to make the data available to the public and, in any case, must keep the data for a reasonable period of time after publication.

c. Originality and plagiarism
Authors should make sure that their writing is entirely original and that, if they do use the ideas or words of others, they have properly cited or quoted them. Plagiarism can take many different forms, including 'passing off' another author's paper as the author's own paper, copying or paraphrasing significant portions of another paper without giving due credit, and claiming the findings of other people's research. All forms of plagiarism are unacceptable and constitute unethical publishing behavior. To ensure that each manuscript is original, we will run it through a plagiarism detector. Additionally, a letter of assurance from the author(s) confirming that the article is original must be submitted with every article.

d. Multiple, redundant, or concurrent publications
It is not advisable to publish papers describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. As a result, authors shouldn't submit a manuscript that has already been accepted by or published in another journal. It is unacceptable and unethical to submit a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal.

e. Acknowledgment of sources
Authors must make sure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others and must list any sources that had a significant impact on how the reported work was defined. Without the source's express, written consent, information obtained informally (through communication, correspondence, or discussions with third parties) cannot be used or reported. Authors must obtain the express written consent of the author(s) of the work involved in these services before using any information they learn while performing confidential services, such as reviewing grant applications or manuscripts.

f. Authorship of the paper
The reported study's authors should only be those who made a significant contribution to its conception, design, execution, or interpretation. It is appropriate to list as co-authors everyone who contributed significantly. When other people have contributed to the research project in meaningful ways, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should make sure that all co-authors have reviewed the paper's final draft, given their approval, and given their consent to its submission for publication.

g. Fundamental errors in published works
It is the responsibility of the author to notify the publisher or journal editor as soon as a significant error or inaccuracy in the author's own published work is found, and to work with the editor to retract or correct the paper. The author must promptly retract or correct the paper or give the editor proof that the original paper was accurate if the editor or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error.

h. Hazards and human or animal subjects
The author must explicitly state in the manuscript any unusual hazards associated with the use of any chemicals, procedures, or equipment used in the work. The author should make sure the manuscript contains a statement that all procedures were carried out in accordance with applicable laws and institutional policies and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them if the work involves the use of human or animal subjects. The manuscript should contain a statement from the authors stating that informed consent was obtained before using human subjects for experimentation. Human subjects' privacy rights must always be respected. The author is responsible for ensuring that any work involving human subjects has been done in accordance with The Declaration of Helsinki, which is the World Medical Association's code of ethics for research involving humans.

i. Declaration of competing interests
Any financial or personal ties to other people or organizations that might be seen as improperly influencing (biasing) an author's work should be disclosed by all authors in their manuscript. The role of the sponsor(s), if any, in the design of the study, in the gathering, analyzing, and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, and in the choice to submit the article for publication should all be disclosed. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement then this should be stated. The manuscript/paper template requires the author to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

j. Image integrity
It is not permitted to improve, hide, reposition, delete, or add a particular feature to an image. Brightness, contrast, and color balance adjustments are acceptable as long as they don't obfuscate or remove any of the information that was present in the original. Image manipulation for better clarity is acceptable, but manipulation for other reasons may be viewed as a breach of scientific ethics and will be handled as such. Authors must abide by any specific guidelines for graphical images imposed by the relevant journal, such as including the original images in the article as supplementary material or depositing them in an appropriate repository.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers

a. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review helps the editor in editorial judgments and may also help the author improve the paper through editorial communications with the author.

b. Promptness
Any picked referee who believes they are inadequate to evaluate the research presented in a manuscript or who is aware that doing so in a timely manner will be impossible should inform the editor and withdraw from the review process.

c. Confidentiality
Any manuscripts that are sent to you for review need to be handled with confidentiality. They cannot be discussed or shown to anyone without the editor's permission.

d. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews ought to be carried out impartially. It is inappropriate to criticize the author personally. Referees should clearly state their positions and provide evidence to back them up.

e. Acknowledgment of sources
Reviewers should point out pertinent published works that the authors have not cited. Any claim that a particular observation, deduction, or argument has already been reported should be supported by the appropriate citation. Any significant overlap or similarity between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has firsthand knowledge should be brought to the editor's attention.

f. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Peer review's privileged knowledge or ideas must be kept secret and not used for one's own benefit. Reviewers shouldn't take into account manuscripts where they have relationships or connections with any of the authors, organizations, or businesses associated with the papers that are competitive, cooperative, or involve other relationships or connections.