About the Journal
Focus and Scope
The Journals and Publications area of the University Freres Mentouri Constantine 1, aims to provide the university community with access to the scientific and educational production of scientists and academics to publish the fruits of their research.
This space gives importance to the dissemination of knowledge and collaboration between different academic institutions. By providing access to scientific and educational production, the Journals and Publications area facilitates the sharing of research results and promotes collaboration between national and foreign researchers.
The aim is to bring together the ancient tradition of publishing scientific and academic research with new technologies to enable the dissemination and sharing of knowledge at different scales, from local to international. This convergence aims to create a public benefit by making knowledge accessible to a wide audience.
By using our space, it becomes possible to disseminate research work more quickly and efficiently, making it available online. This allows more people to benefit from this knowledge, whether located locally, regionally, nationally or even internationally.
Large-scale dissemination and sharing of knowledge promotes collaboration between researchers, academic institutions and scientific communities. It also stimulates the development of knowledge and contributes to the advancement of research in different fields.
The scientific publications of the University Frères Mentouri Constantine 1, which were produced from 1988 onwards, represent a valuable scientific heritage.
This heritage requires continuous criticism, support and enrichment, which are essential to ensure its existence and expand its own broadcasting networks.
Scientific publications play a crucial role in disseminating knowledge and contributing to the advancement of research. They allow researchers to share their findings, analyses and work with the scientific community and interested public.
To ensure the quality and relevance of the scientific publications of the University Frères Mentouri Constantine 1, it is important to subject them to rigorous criticism and evaluation. This makes it possible to identify the strengths and weaknesses of research work, improve its content and guarantee its reliability and credibility.
Ensure the sustainability of scientific publications. It is important to provide the necessary resources for the research, publishing, dissemination and promotion of the research work carried out at the University Frères Mentouri Constantine 1.
Finally, scientific publications are enriched through collaboration and exchange with other researchers and institutions. It is important to foster partnerships and dissemination networks to allow a wider dissemination of knowledge produced by the University Frères Mentouri Constantine 1.
Peer Review Process (Double Blind)
The peer review process is a crucial step in the publication of scientific research to ensure the quality, validity and credibility of articles by submitting them to critical review by experts in the field before publication.
The expertise of the submitted article is transmitted anonymously to two experts of magistral rank (Lecturer A or Professor) chosen from a list of experts present in the database, which has a large number of experts. This selection is done using specific keywords and themes.
When selecting experts, those who belong to the institutions of the authors are excluded in order to ensure an impartial and objective evaluation of the submitted work.
In the peer review process, two independent experts in the relevant research area of magistral rank are selected from a list of experts in the database, using specific keywords and themes. The experts evaluate the article anonymously, without knowing the identity of the authors, and the authors do not know the identity of the experts. This anonymity avoids potential biases and ensures an objective evaluation of the submitted work.
These experts, also called "peers", carefully examine the article to assess its methodology, relevance, scientific rigor, results and conclusions.
Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the strengths and weaknesses of the article, and may recommend changes, revisions or even rejection of the article if it does not meet the required quality criteria.
This peer review process is essential to ensure the credibility and reliability of research. It allows to filter articles of inferior quality or containing methodological errors, and to ensure that only high-quality works are published.
- Quality control
The evaluation sheets allow the editor to make the decisions to preserve the quality of the journal based on the expertise namely the relevance, originality and validity of the content of the article.
- Constructive criticism
Peer review expertise provides constructive feedback and clear suggestions to help authors improve their article in the future. The expert who agrees to evaluate an article plays an essential role in serving the journal, the authors of the article and the scientific community as a whole.
By providing constructive criticism, the expert can highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the article, identify methodological or conceptual gaps, and propose recommendations to improve the quality and relevance of the research. Constructive comments can also help authors clarify their arguments, strengthen their analysis, and present their results more convincingly.
The objective of this constructive critique is to guide the authors in their revision process, providing them with specific advice and concrete suggestions for improving their article. This ensures that published work is of high quality and meets expected scientific standards.
Peer review expertise contributes to the continuous improvement of scientific research by encouraging authors to push the boundaries of their work, develop innovative ideas and produce high-quality articles. This benefits not only the journal and the authors, but also the entire scientific community by promoting the advancement of knowledge and stimulating quality research.
In the academic community, carrying out evaluation mandates is a common practice for most researchers. This is considered a privilege as reviewers have the chance to familiarize themselves with new ideas in their field even before they are published. However, it is also an important responsibility.
It is important to note that the evaluation of items is generally an unpaid task. Researchers who agree to conduct these assessments often do so out of conviction, as they see it as contributing to a collective effort to maintain a high level of quality for the articles they read and use in their own research.
Carrying out evaluation mandates in the academic environment is both a privilege and a responsibility. Researchers usually do so on a voluntary basis as they see it as helping to maintain a high level of quality in scientific research and supporting the collective effort of the scientific community.
Agreeing to evaluate an article represents a commitment to the scientific community and authors. For this reason, experts are asked to respect certain expectations and rules, including:
Sufficient competence: Experts must have sufficient expertise and knowledge in the field of research of the article being evaluated. This allows them to provide an accurate and relevant assessment.
Respect of deadlines: Experts must respect the deadlines set for the evaluation of the article. This ensures a quick and effective evaluation of the authors' work.
Confidentiality: Experts must respect the rules of confidentiality by not disclosing the information contained in the evaluated article. This ensures the protection of authors' rights and the confidentiality of research work.
Anonymity: In many cases, peer review is done anonymously, meaning that the authors do not know the identity of the experts who evaluated their article. This ensures an impartial and objective assessment.
Avoid conflicts of interest: Experts must avoid any conflict of interest that could compromise the objectivity of their assessment. For example, if an expert has personal or professional ties with the authors of the article, it is better to decline the invitation to the evaluation.
By respecting these expectations and rules, experts help maintain the integrity and quality of scientific research, while supporting the scientific community as a whole.
Open Access Policy
The open access policy is an approach that aims to make scientific research available free of charge and immediately to the public. The underlying idea is that the free dissemination of knowledge facilitates a wider and faster global exchange of knowledge.
This policy allows researchers to publish their work in journals that offer immediate open access to their content, without financial barriers or access restrictions. This means that articles published in these journals can be viewed, downloaded, shared and used by anyone, be they researchers, students, professionals or the general public.
The principle of open access promotes the dissemination and visibility of research, which can have a positive impact on collaboration, data reuse, scientific advances and promote open dissemination of knowledge.
Ethics and malpractice statement
The publication of an article in a peer-reviewed journal is an essential model for our journal « Journal of Humain Sciences”.
In order to provide our readers with a journal of highest quality, we state the following principles of Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Our ethic statements are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behaviour for all parts involved in the act of publishing: Editors, authors, and reviewers.
The Journal of Sciences & technology is fully committed to good publication practice and assumes the task of fulfilling the following duties and responsibilities.
1- Duties of the editor
Publication decisions: The Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor may be guided by the editorial policies of the journal and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism. The editor may confer with the members of the Editorial Board or reviewers in making this decision.
Fair Review: The Editor-in-Chief ensures that each manuscript received is evaluated on its
intellectual content without regard to race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: The Editor-in-Chief, the members of the Editorial Board and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the authors of the manuscript, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in the research of the Editor-in-Chief or that of the members of the Editorial Board without the expressed written consent of the author.
2- Duties of reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board in making editorial decisions, and the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: A selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and decline to review the paper.
Confidentiality: The manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents. They will not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is unacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should attempt to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that a result or argument has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider 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.
3- Duties of authors
Reporting standards: Authors should accurately present their original research, as well as
objectively discuss its significance. Manuscripts are to be edited in accordance with the submission guidelines of the review. Authors are also responsible for language editing before submitting the article. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and that the work and/or words of others have been appropriately cited or quoted if the authors have used them. The Journal of Sciences & technology reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.
Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not in general publish
manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or conference.
Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Data Access and Retention: Authors should retain raw data related to their submitted paper and must provide it for editorial review upon request of the Editor-in-Chief.
Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited only to those who have made a significant contribution to conceiving, designing, executing and/or interpreting the submitted study.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources should be appropriately credited and referenced.
Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his or her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.