About the Journal

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Journal of Robotics and Control, called JRC, is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Editorial Board is responsible for, among others, preventing publication malpractice. Unethical behavior is unacceptable, and the JRC does not tolerate plagiarism in any form. Authors who submitted articles: affirm that manuscript contents are original. Furthermore, the authors’ submission also implies that the manuscript has not been published previously in any language, either wholly or partly, and is not currently submitted for publication elsewhere. Editors, authors, and reviewers, within the International Journal of Advances in Intelligent Informatics, are to be fully committed to good publication practice and accept the responsibility for fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities, as set by the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. As part of the Core Practices, COPE has written guidelines on the http://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines.

Section A: Publication and authorship 

1. All submitted papers are subject to a strict peer-review process by at least two international reviewers that are experts in the area of the particular paper.
2. The review process is a blind peer review.
3. The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability and language.
4. The possible decisions include acceptance, acceptance with revisions, or rejection.
5. If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission, there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
6. Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
7. The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
8. No research can be included in more than one publication. 

Section B: Authors’ responsibilities

1. Authors must certify that their manuscripts are their original work.
2. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere.
3. Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. 
4. Authors must participate in the peer-review process. 
5. Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.
6. All Authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research.
7. Authors must state that all data in the paper are real and authentic.
8. Authors must notify the Editors of any conflicts of interest.
9. Authors must identify all sources used in the creation of their manuscript.
10. Authors must report any errors they discover in their published paper to the Editors. 

Section C: Reviewers’ responsibilities

1. Reviewers should keep all information regarding papers confidential and treat them as privileged information. 
2. Reviews should be conducted objectively, with no personal criticism of the author
3. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments
4. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
5. Reviewers should also call to the Editor in Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
6. Reviewers should not review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. 

Section D: Editors’ responsibilities

1. Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article.
2. Editors are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication.
3. Editors should always consider the needs of the authors and the readers when attempting to improve the publication.
4. Editors should guarantee the quality of the papers and the integrity of the academic record.
5. Editors should publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.
6. Editors should have a clear picture of research’s funding sources.
7. Editors should base their decisions solely one the papers’ importance, originality, clarity and relevance to publication’s scope.
8. Editors should not reverse their decisions nor overturn the ones of previous editors without serious reason. 
9. Editors should preserve the anonymity of reviewers. 
10. Editors should ensure that all research material they publish conforms to internationally accepted ethical guidelines.
11. Editors should only accept a paper when reasonably certain.
12. Editors should act if they suspect misconduct, whether a paper is published or unpublished, and make all reasonable attempts to persist in obtaining a resolution to the problem.
13. Editors should not reject papers based on suspicions, they should have proof of misconduct.
14. Editors should not allow any conflicts of interest between staff, authors, reviewers and board members.

JRC Editorial Board will ensure that every published article will not exceed a 25% similarity Score. Plagiarism screening will be conducted by JRC Editorial Board using Plagiarism X Checker and Turnitin Similarity Check.

The references and citations are using IEEE Style. The author can use reference management software e.g. Zotero, EndNote®, Mendeley, or Manual References.

The author is not allowed to withdraw the submitted manuscript because the withdrawal is a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spent a great deal of time processing the submitted manuscript and works invested by the Publisher. However, the authors could suggest the withdrawal if there is no updated progress review information after six months from our side.

Peer Review Process

This journal uses double-blind peer review, which means that the paper's reviewers won’t get to know the identity of the author(s), and the author(s) won’t get to know the reviewer's identity. The idea is that everyone should get a similar and unbiased review. The peer review process will take a time approximately 6 months.

Peer Review Process

The process can be described as follow.

1. An editor first reviews the submitted manuscript. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the Journal of Robotics and Control focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw and similarity score by using Turnitin. The decision is rejected or accepted for a review process.

2. The manuscript will be sent to at least two anonymous reviewers (Double Blind Review). Reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses.

3. Afterward, the editorial team meeting suggested the authors' final decision on the revised manuscript.

4. Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.

5. The accepted manuscript continued with copyediting and layout editing to prepare the camera-ready paper.

Review Outcomes

The Editor will make a final publication decision using feedback from the peer review process. Decisions categories include:

• Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version to JRC.
• Major Revision - The manuscript will be reviewed again after some major modifications are made.
• Minor Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in JRC if minor modifications are made. An editor will review revisions to ensure necessary updates are made before publication.
• Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form without further modifications.

The detailed Journal peer review process is based on the following chart:

This journal is published six times a year.