Editorial Policies

1. Editorial Principles

Engineering Informatics and Intelligent Systems is committed to rigorous, fair, and transparent scholarly publishing. The journal expects high standards of integrity from authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher. Our editorial policies are informed by the COPE Core Practices, the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, and widely adopted international publishing norms.

We publish work on the basis of:

  • scholarly merit;
  • methodological soundness;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope;
  • clarity of reporting;
  • originality;
  • ethical conduct of the research and publication process.

Editorial decisions are made without discrimination based on nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, race, religion, political belief, or other personal characteristics. Editors will evaluate submissions for their academic quality and relevance to readers.

2. Editorial Independence

The Editor-in-Chief has full responsibility for the journal’s editorial content and publication decisions. Editorial decisions are independent of commercial, institutional, or personal interests. Any relationship that may interfere with independent editorial judgment must be disclosed and managed appropriately. This general approach is consistent with major publisher ethics policies and COPE guidance on editorial responsibility and conflict management.

3. Peer Review Policy

3.1 Model of peer review

Engineering Informatics and Intelligent Systems operates a double-anonymous peer review process unless otherwise stated for a specific article type. In this model, author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.

3.2 Initial editorial assessment

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening before external review. At this stage, the editorial office or handling editor may assess:

  • fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • basic scholarly quality and clarity;
  • compliance with submission requirements;
  • originality and overlap concerns;
  • whether the manuscript appears sufficiently complete and reviewable;
  • whether ethical declarations and supporting information are present.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they are clearly out of scope, insufficiently developed, seriously flawed, ethically problematic, or inconsistent with the journal’s standards.

3.3 External review

Submissions sent for review are normally evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected for subject expertise, independence, and absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to assess, as appropriate:

  • originality and significance;
  • technical and methodological soundness;
  • appropriateness of analysis and interpretation;
  • adequacy of evidence and reproducibility information;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • ethical and reporting compliance;
  • suitability for the journal.

COPE states that peer reviewers should respect confidentiality, declare conflicts, and not use information from the manuscript for personal advantage.

3.4 Editorial decisions

Editorial decisions may include:

  • accept;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision;
  • reject with invitation to resubmit as a new submission;
  • reject.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately delegated editor.

3.5 Revision policy

Authors submitting a revision should provide:

  1. a clean revised manuscript;
  2. a marked version showing changes, if requested;
  3. a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

3.6 Reviewer suggestions

Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the journal is under no obligation to use them. Authors may also identify individuals they prefer not to review their work, with a brief justification. The editors retain full discretion over reviewer selection.

3.7 Confidentiality of peer review

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Authors, reviewers, and editors must not disclose, distribute, or misuse unpublished content.

4. Reviewer Responsibilities

By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to:

  • review only if they have sufficient expertise and can meet the deadline;
  • declare any conflicts of interest promptly;
  • treat the manuscript as confidential;
  • provide objective, evidence-based, and respectful comments;
  • avoid personal criticism;
  • alert the editor to substantial overlap, plagiarism, ethical concerns, image manipulation, or other integrity issues they notice.

This reflects COPE’s reviewer guidance and the confidentiality principles used by major publishers.

5. Editor Responsibilities

Editors are expected to:

  • handle submissions fairly, consistently, and confidentially;
  • avoid discriminatory decision-making;
  • recuse themselves from manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest;
  • select appropriate reviewers;
  • protect the integrity of the review process;
  • act on concerns about plagiarism, duplication, authorship disputes, fabricated data, peer review manipulation, or other misconduct;
  • follow COPE-aligned procedures when serious ethics concerns arise.

COPE provides flowcharts and guidance for issues such as plagiarism, fabricated data, reviewer misconduct, and other publication ethics problems.

6. Authorship and Contributorship

6.1 Authorship criteria

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial scholarly contributions to the work and who can take public responsibility for its content. ICMJE emphasizes that authorship carries both credit and accountability.

All listed authors must:

  • have made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, execution, analysis, or interpretation of the study;
  • have participated in drafting the manuscript or critically revising it;
  • have approved the final version;
  • agree to be accountable for the work.

Persons who contributed but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged rather than listed as authors.

6.2 Corresponding author responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for:

  • ensuring that all eligible contributors are appropriately listed;
  • ensuring that no ineligible person is listed as an author;
  • securing approval of the submitted and revised versions from all co-authors;
  • managing communication with the journal;
  • submitting required declarations on behalf of all authors where permitted.

6.3 Changes to authorship

Any addition, removal, or rearrangement of authors after submission must be requested in writing and justified. The journal may require written agreement from all authors, including any added or removed author. Changes after acceptance will be permitted only in exceptional circumstances.

6.4 Author contribution statement

The journal requires an Author Contributions statement for all research articles and recommends use of the CRediT taxonomy, which defines 14 standardized contributor roles to improve transparency about who did what. CRediT is maintained as an ANSI/NISO standard and is intended to complement, not replace, authorship criteria.

Example

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: A.B., C.D.; Methodology: A.B., E.F.; Software: E.F.; Validation: A.B., C.D.; Formal analysis: A.B.; Investigation: A.B., E.F.; Data curation: E.F.; Writing – original draft: A.B.; Writing – review & editing: all authors; Supervision: C.D.; Funding acquisition: C.D.

7. Acknowledgements

Authors should acknowledge individuals, organizations, or services that contributed to the work but do not meet the criteria for authorship. This may include technical assistance, language editing, data collection support, access to facilities, or administrative support.

Any acknowledged person should have given permission to be named.

7.1 Funding disclosure

All sources of financial support must be declared clearly, including grant numbers where applicable.

Example

Acknowledgements
The authors thank [name / team / institution] for [specific support].
Funding
This work was supported by [funder name] under Grant No. [number]. The funder had no role in study design; data collection, analysis, or interpretation; manuscript preparation; or the decision to submit the work for publication.

If there was no external funding, authors should state:

Funding
This research received no external funding.

8. Competing Interests / Conflict of Interest

The journal requires all authors to disclose any financial or non-financial competing interests that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work or its interpretation. Nature Portfolio, Springer Nature, Elsevier, and ICMJE all require disclosure of relationships or activities that may bias, or be seen to bias, editorial or research judgment.

Examples may include:

  • employment;
  • consultancy;
  • stock ownership or options;
  • paid expert testimony;
  • patents or patent applications;
  • grants or funding relationships;
  • personal or professional rivalries;
  • board memberships;
  • political, institutional, or ideological interests directly relevant to the manuscript.

Example

Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.

or

Competing Interests
Author A.B. reports consulting fees from [company]. Author C.D. is a co-inventor on patent application [number]. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Reviewers and editors must also disclose conflicts and recuse themselves where appropriate.

9. Data Availability, Code Availability, and Materials Availability

The journal supports transparent and reproducible research. Consistent with Springer Nature and Nature Portfolio practice, manuscripts should include a Data Availability Statement explaining whether and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed.

9.1 Data availability statement

Authors must include a statement describing:

  • what data support the findings;
  • where the data can be found;
  • any repository identifier, DOI, or accession number;
  • any restrictions on access and why they apply.

Examples

Data Availability
The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in the [repository name] repository, [DOI or persistent link].

Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Data Availability
The data are not publicly available because they contain confidential / commercially sensitive / personal information, but de-identified or restricted-access data may be available from the corresponding author subject to institutional approval.

9.2 Code availability

Where custom code, scripts, or software are central to the results, authors are strongly encouraged to share them in a trusted repository.

Example

Code Availability
The code used for the analyses in this study is available at [repository link / DOI].

9.3 Materials and protocol availability

Where applicable, authors should describe how materials, instruments, model weights, protocols, or supplementary resources can be accessed.

10. Research Ethics, Consent, and Permissions

10.1 Human participants

Research involving human participants, personal data, surveys, interviews, or identifiable images must comply with applicable ethical and legal requirements. Authors must state:

  • the approving ethics committee or institutional review board, where applicable;
  • reference number if available;
  • whether informed consent was obtained;
  • how privacy and confidentiality were protected.

10.2 Animal research

Research involving animals must comply with relevant institutional and legal standards. Authors should state the approving authority and relevant permit or approval information where applicable.

10.3 Consent to publish

If identifiable personal information, photographs, videos, case details, or other potentially identifying materials are included, authors must confirm that appropriate consent to publish was obtained.

10.4 Permissions

Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to reuse copyrighted material, including figures, tables, lengthy quotations, or other third-party content, unless such reuse is clearly permitted by licence or law.

11. Originality, Redundant Publication, and Preprints

Submitted manuscripts must be original and must not be under consideration elsewhere. Authors must not submit the same manuscript simultaneously to more than one journal.

The journal does not accept:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate submission;
  • redundant or duplicate publication without proper justification and transparency;
  • inappropriate salami slicing.

COPE provides specific editorial workflows for suspected plagiarism and related misconduct.

11.1 Preprints

The journal may consider manuscripts previously posted on a recognized non-commercial or discipline-appropriate preprint server, provided this is disclosed at submission and the manuscript is not under formal peer-reviewed publication elsewhere.

A suitable policy sentence is:

Posting on a recognized preprint server does not, by itself, constitute prior publication. Authors should disclose any preprint version at submission and update the preprint record, where possible, upon publication.

12. Plagiarism Screening and Integrity Checks

The journal may screen submissions for textual overlap, image concerns, metadata irregularities, and other integrity signals before or during peer review.

Editorial concerns may include:

  • plagiarism or unattributed reuse;
  • manipulated or misleading images;
  • fabricated or falsified data;
  • peer review manipulation;
  • paper mill indicators;
  • undisclosed use of third-party writing or submission services.

Where concerns arise, the journal may request raw data, source files, ethics approvals, authorship explanations, funding details, or institutional confirmation. COPE provides guidance for handling plagiarism, fabricated data, and post-publication concerns.

13. Image Integrity and Reporting Accuracy

Authors must not manipulate images, figures, gels, micrographs, or other visual data in a misleading way. Adjustments to brightness, contrast, or colour are acceptable only if applied appropriately and if they do not obscure, remove, or misrepresent information.

Where image-based results are important, the journal may request original unprocessed files.

Authors must describe methods with enough clarity to permit understanding, evaluation, and, where feasible, reproduction of the work.

14. Use of Generative AI and AI-Assisted Tools

If authors use generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the preparation of the manuscript, this use must be disclosed transparently. Such tools cannot be listed as authors, because authorship requires accountability and responsibility that can only be assumed by humans under prevailing authorship norms. This follows the authorship/accountability logic emphasized by ICMJE and major publisher policies.

A practical journal policy can be:

Authors must disclose the use of generative AI or AI-assisted tools in the preparation of the manuscript, figures, code, or supplementary materials if such use was substantive. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, legality, and integrity of all submitted content. AI tools may not be listed as authors.

You can also require disclosure in a separate statement:

AI Use Disclosure
The authors used [tool name] for [language editing / code assistance / figure drafting / summarization]. All outputs were reviewed and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final content.

15. Citation Integrity

Authors should cite the literature responsibly and accurately. Citations should be relevant to the scholarly context and should not be included merely to inflate citation counts of particular authors, journals, or institutions.

Reviewers and editors must not pressure authors to add citations unless there is a valid scholarly reason.

16. Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must treat manuscripts and associated correspondence as confidential. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s or reviewer’s own research or shared with others without explicit authorization.

17. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe a serious misunderstanding or procedural error affected the decision. Appeals must:

  • be submitted in writing;
  • explain the specific grounds for appeal;
  • respond substantively to editorial or reviewer concerns.

A new editorial assessment may be conducted, and additional peer review may be sought at the journal’s discretion. The decision on appeal is final.

Complaints regarding editorial process, publication ethics, or peer review may be submitted to the editorial office. The journal will handle complaints fairly and, where relevant, in line with COPE guidance.

18. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern

When errors or integrity concerns are identified after publication, the journal may issue:

  • a correction (erratum or corrigendum);
  • an expression of concern;
  • a retraction;
  • in limited cases, a withdrawal or replacement, where justified.

COPE provides formal guidance on retractions and expressions of concern, including when such notices are appropriate and how they should be presented.

A strong policy wording is:

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity of the scholarly record. Where post-publication issues arise, the journal will investigate them carefully and may publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction, as appropriate. Such notices will be linked to the original article and will explain the reason for the editorial action as clearly as possible.

19. Post-Publication Discussion

The journal welcomes substantiated post-publication discussion. Concerns about published articles should be sent to the editorial office with specific evidence. Anonymous allegations may be considered if they are detailed, credible, and testable.

20. Misconduct Investigations

Suspected misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

  • plagiarism;
  • data fabrication or falsification;
  • image manipulation;
  • authorship misrepresentation;
  • undisclosed competing interests;
  • ethical approval misrepresentation;
  • peer review manipulation;
  • paper mill involvement.

The journal may contact authors for explanation, request supporting documentation, consult independent experts, and, where necessary, contact institutions, funders, or other appropriate bodies. COPE encourages cooperation between journals and institutions when serious research integrity concerns arise.

21. Required Declarations in the Manuscript

For research articles, the journal should require the following sections near the end of the manuscript:

  1. Acknowledgements
  2. Funding
  3. Author Contributions
  4. Data Availability
  5. Code Availability (where applicable)
  6. Ethics Approval (where applicable)
  7. Consent to Participate (where applicable)
  8. Consent to Publish (where applicable)
  9. Competing Interests
  10. AI Use Disclosure (recommended)

This structure aligns well with common publisher practice and supports transparency in responsibility, funding, data access, and bias disclosure.

Standard Declaration Templates for Authors

Acknowledgements

The authors thank [name / institution / team] for [specific contribution]. The acknowledged individuals have consented to be named.

Funding

This work was supported by [funder] under Grant No. [number].
or
This research received no external funding.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: A.B.; Methodology: A.B., C.D.; Software: C.D.; Validation: A.B., C.D.; Formal analysis: A.B.; Investigation: A.B.; Data curation: C.D.; Writing – original draft: A.B.; Writing – review & editing: all authors; Supervision: E.F.; Funding acquisition: E.F.

Data Availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available in [repository] at [DOI/link].
or
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
or
The data are not publicly available due to [reason], but may be made available subject to [conditions].

Code Availability

The code used in this study is available at [repository / DOI].
or
No custom code was used in this study.
or
The code is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Ethics Approval

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from [committee name], reference [number].
or
Ethical approval was not required for this study because [brief reason].

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study.
or
Not applicable.

Consent to Publish

Consent for publication of identifiable data / images was obtained from the relevant participant(s).
or
Not applicable.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.
or
Author A.B. reports [relationship]. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

AI Use Disclosure

The authors used [tool name] for [specific purpose]. All generated content was reviewed, revised, and verified by the authors, who take full responsibility for the final manuscript.
or
No generative AI tools were used in the preparation of this manuscript.