Prestress Technology implements a double-blind peer-review policy, follows recognized publishing ethics, and firmly opposes any form of plagiarism. The academic ethics and norms statement of this journal is formulated based on the "Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors" issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ethical expectations

Duties of Authors

·Authors should present an accurate account of their original research as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Manuscripts will follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
·Author should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. The author should not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal.
·Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in their research work.
·Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors.

Duties of Editor

·Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject or request modifications to the manuscript. ·Editors should have no conflict of interest with respect to articles they reject/accept.
·Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality, making use of appropriate software to do so. After passing this test, the manuscript is forwarded to two reviewers for double-blind peer review, each of whom will make a recommendation to accept, reject, or modify the manuscript.
·The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by journal of Prestress Technology is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors.

Duties of Reviewers

·Manuscript reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. If the reviewers find plagiarism or a manuscript cast more phenomenon, they should immediately tell the editor.
·Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
·Reviewers should have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. ·Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
·When a reviewer feels it is not possible to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.

Duties of Corresponding author

·To ensure that all named authors have approved the submitted version of the manuscript, agree to its submission and are willing to take appropriate responsibility for it.
·All authors should be consulted about any subsequent changes to authorship (e.g. the list of authors) during the publication process, and it should be made clear to the journal that they have given their consent with written confirmation.

Duties of Publisher

·Ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
·Vigorously investigate allegations of publication misconduct both before and after publication.
·We reserve the right to contact authors' institutions, funders, or regulatory bodies if needed.
·If we find conclusive evidence of misconduct, we will take steps to correct the scientific record, which may include issuing a correction or retraction.

Conflicts of interest

Authors

·Articles should include a full list of the current institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate. We also encourage authors to provide ORCID identifiers for each named author on submission.
·All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed in the article when submitting their article.
·All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when submitting their article (e.g. employment, consulting fees, research contracts, stock ownership, patent licenses, honoraria, advisory affiliations, etc.). If the article is subsequently accepted for publication, this information should be included in an acknowledgments section.

Reviewers

·Reviewers should contact the editor and the journal office to declare any potential conflicts of interest in advance of reviewing an article (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author), and if necessary, withdraw the services for that manuscript.
·Minor conflicts do not disqualify a reviewer from reporting on an article but will betaken into account when considering the reviewers’ recommendations. Major conflicts of interest do disqualify a reviewer.

Referencing, citation and novelty

Authors have a responsibility to acknowledge the work of others used in their research and to cite publications that have influenced the direction and course of their study. Information obtained in private correspondence or conversation should only be used with the explicit permission of the individuals involved. Information obtained whilst providing confidential services, such as refereeing research articles or grant applications, should not be used without permission of the original author.
All sources for the article must be clearly disclosed and permissions obtained from the original authors (and original publishers if they hold the copyright) for any figures or significant extracts that are to be reproduced or quoted. (Collection of such permissions is the responsibility of the authors.)

Plagiarism

Submitted articles must be the authors’ own work. Plagiarism constitutes unethical scientific behavior and is never acceptable. Plagiarism ranges from the unreferenced use of others’ ideas to submission of a complete article under 'new' authorship.

Duplicate publication/self-plagiarism

Duplicate publication (sometimes called 'self-plagiarism') is the production of multiple articles with the same, or essentially the same, content by the same authors and is viewed as unacceptable. Submitted research articles must be novel and original.
In the case of articles that expand upon previously published conference proceedings, or conference write-ups that discuss work already published in an earlier article, some limited exceptions to this rule may apply. However, in these cases authors should consult with the journal office before submission. In all instances, articles must clearly cite their sources and present some new contribution to the published literature otherwise such articles will be rejected.
Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced. Translations and adaptations for different audiences should be clearly identified as such, should acknowledge the original source, and should respect relevant copyright conventions and permission requirements. If in doubt, authors should seek permission from the original publisher before republishing any work.

Parallel submission

It is unethical to submit the same, or essentially the same, article to a second primary research journal whilst it remains under active consideration by another.
To aid us in detecting any submissions that do not meet the above requirements, we regularly use plagiarism-detection software to screen articles.

Use of third-party materials (image permissions)

Articles may occasionally include images or figures created by a third-party (i.e., a non-author). Express permission must be received from the copyright holder prior to publication. The copyright holder, who could be a publisher, corporation, or individual, must give a written permission. Permission is only needed if the copyright holder is not an author on the article.

Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior

Identification of unethical behavior

·Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone.
·Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but are not limited to concerns about the integrity of published work, handling of retraction, plagiarism, conflict of interest, or peer reviewer manipulation.
·Whoever informs the editor or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated.
·All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.

Investigation

·An initial decision should be made by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from the publisher if appropriate.
·Evidence should be gathered while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

·Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely.
·The author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor or the journal office, in consultation with the publisher and the editor in chief, should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

·Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
·A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
·Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
·Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
·A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
·Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
·Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
·Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.