Editorial Policy

Intelektual Pustaka Media Utama (IPMU) is a non-profit international scientific association of distinguished scholars engaged in engineering and science devoted to promoting research and technologies in engineering and science fields through digital technology. IPMU Journals are peer-reviewed open-access international journals. By stating these publication ethics and publication malpractice statements, IPMU pledges to ensure best practices in publishing integrity and manage any malpractice. Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the scholarly literature world. It occurs across all subject areas and jurisdictions; few journals are immune. Every author, editor, reviewer, publisher, and institution must take responsibility for preventing publication malpractice. This statement is based on major publishers, guidance from the Scopus title evaluation requirements for publication ethics and malpractice statements (PEMS), the declaration on research assessment (DORA), and industry organizations such as:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
  • Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)

Back to Menu

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in this publisher is an essential building block in the development of a coherent and respected network of knowledge. It is a direct reflection of the quality of the work of the authors and the institutions that support them. Peer-reviewed articles support and embody the scientific method. It is therefore important to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in the act of publishing: the authors, the journal editors, the peer reviewers, the publisher, and the society.
Intelektual Pustaka Media Utama (IPMU) as publisher takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities. We are committed to ensuring that advertising, reprinting, or other commercial revenue has no impact or influence on editorial decisions. In addition, the IPMU and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.
IPMU requires all authors to understand its definition of authorship, as well as the proper procedures for citation and data reporting, and the ethical guidelines for scientific publishing.

Definition of Authorship

IPMU defines authorship based on contributions to at least one of the following areas: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, or investigation, and at least one aspect of writing, including original draft preparation, review, or editing.

Authorship for articles with multiple authors

For collaborative publications, authors must agree on a corresponding author to serve as the primary contact with the publication. The corresponding author, in addition to meeting the authorship criteria, is responsible for:

  • Ensuring all appropriate individuals are included as co-authors and that no inappropriate individuals are included.
  • Securing each co-author’s agreement to their designation and their approval of the final, accepted manuscript.
  • Providing all co-authors with updates on the manuscript’s progress, including reviewer feedback and the final published article.

Author contributions

We use the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration. We encourage authors to include a statement in the paper that shares and accurately describes each author’s contribution. And all of them approved the manuscript version to be published. 14 role taxonomies can be used to describe the key types of contributions typically made to the production and publication of research output such as research articles.

Example of how to present your author’s contribution to the manuscript:

IPMU author name change policy

IPMU supports the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) initiative and guidelines on an inclusive approach to author name changes.

Cite Sources Appropriately

Proper citation of all sources is mandatory in journal articles. Best practice dictates citing sources in the following ways:

  • For direct quotations: Use quotation marks (and indentation for longer passages) and provide a full citation.
  • When paraphrasing or summarizing: Always cite the original source, even when expressing the information in your own words. This includes ideas, processes, arguments, and conclusions.
  • When using data, research results, graphics, or tables: Provide a citation to the original source, whether you are referring to, adapting, or reusing the information.

This also applies to your own previously published work. The safest approach is to cite whenever you are drawing upon another source.

Plagiarism

IPMU considers the use of another’s ideas, processes, results, or words without clear and proper attribution to be plagiarism. This includes but is not limited to, copying text, paraphrasing without citation, and using another’s research findings without acknowledgment. Plagiarism in any form is a serious violation of professional ethics and can have severe legal and professional repercussions.
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
All IPMU journal articles are screened for plagiarism before publication.

Inappropriate use of citations

Artificially boosting citation counts by citing irrelevant sources is a serious ethical violation. All citations must be relevant and contribute meaningfully to the article.

Report Your Data Accurately

Authors must present their manuscripts truthfully, without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or improper data manipulation.

  • Fabrication: Inventing data or results.
  • Falsification: Manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results.
  • Image manipulation: Excessive or inappropriate adjustment of an image that alters the scientific meaning of the image.

Publish Original Research

IPMU requires that submitted articles contain original, previously unpublished research and not be under consideration elsewhere. Recognizing that research often progresses from conference papers with preliminary findings to more developed journal or magazine articles, IPMU supports this evolution provided that:

  • Both the conference and journal articles undergo standard peer review.
  • The journal article contains significantly more technical information.
  • The journal article cites the conference article and delineates the differences.

Back to Menu

Authors Responsibilities

IPMU wants to make sure that authors understand the responsibilities and rights that come with being a published IPMU author.

Responsibilities

You must ensure that your article is an original work of the listed authors, is not previously published, and is not currently submitted elsewhere. You must also follow all ethical guidelines on authorship, citation, data reporting, and publishing original research., data reporting, and publishing original research.

Rights

As an IPMU author, you may share and post your article following open-access article-sharing policies.

More Information

In our commitment to continuously improving our user experience and support to the research communities, we welcome your feedback, questions, and suggestions contact us at info@iaescore.com.

Back to Menu

Guidelines and Policies

Fundamental Publishing Principles

IPMU adheres to the best practices and high publishing standards and complies with the following conditions:

  1. 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;
  2. Allows the author to hold the copyright and to retain publishing rights without restrictions;
  3. Deposits content with a long-term digital preservation or archiving program;
  4. Uses DOIs as permanent identifiers;
  5. Embeds machine-readable CC licensing information in articles;
  6. Allows generous reuse and mixing of content, following CC BY-SA license;
  7. Can provide article-level metadata for any indexers and aggregators;
  8. Has a deposit policy registered with a deposit policy registry, e.g. Sherpa/Romeo.

Submission and Peer Review Policies

Manuscripts submitted to the IPMU journal must adhere to its focus, scope, and author guidelines and be written in excellent English. We recommend that authors who do not speak English as their first language have their manuscripts proofread for grammar and clarity before submission. Manuscripts submitted must be of scientific merit and/or novelty or make a new contribution to knowledge that is appropriate to the journal’s focus and scope. Authors must present their manuscripts truthfully, without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or improper data manipulation. All submitted manuscripts must be unique and free from any prior publication. Editors will use iThenticate software to check the similarity of manuscripts in the IPMU journal.
Peer review is critical to the quality of published manuscripts because it refines key points, identifies errors and gaps, and provides authors with constructive feedback and suggestions. Additionally, it serves as a filter, meticulously scrutinizing research before publication. IPMU journal adheres to the traditional single-blind reviewing policy, keeping the reviewer’s name hidden from the submitting author at all times. At least two anonymous independent reviewers from the research field will assess your manuscript’s quality, contribution, validity, originality, relevance, and presentation of the research findings.
The publisher ensures that editors follow best practice guidelines to avoid selecting fraudulent peer reviewers and to ensure a fair, unbiased, and timely peer review process. The editor will consider feedback from peer reviewers when deciding whether to accept or reject your manuscript for publication. Each round of review takes about 8 weeks, and the editor will promptly notify the authors of the results. Each paper’s peer-review process can consist of one, two, or three rounds. If the editor deems a manuscript unsuitable for publication in the IPMU journal, no correspondence will follow. We will send all correspondence via email, including editor decisions and revision requests. We believe in the integrity of peer review and adhere to the following statement: All published articles in the IPMU journal have undergone rigorous peer review, based on initial editor screening, anonymous refereeing by independent expert referees, and subsequent revision by article authors as needed.

Post-Publication Policies

Post-Publication Discussions and Corrections

This journal accepts discussion and corrections on published articles by readers. In case the reader is giving discussions and corrections toward a published article, the reader can contact the editor-in-chief by email to explain the discussions and corrections. If accepted (by the editor-in-chief), the discussions and corrections will be published in the next issue as a letter to the editor. Respected authors can reply to the discussions and corrections from the reader by sending the reply to the editor-in-chief. Therefore, editors may publish the answer as a reply to the letter to the editor.

Retractions and withdrawal

Authors are not allowed to withdraw submitted manuscripts, because the withdrawals are a waste of valuable resources that editors and referees spend a great deal of time processing submitted manuscripts, money, and works invested by the publisher.
If authors still request withdrawal of their manuscripts when the manuscripts are still in the peer-reviewing process, authors will be punished with paying $200 per manuscript, as a withdrawal penalty to the publisher. However, it is unethical to withdraw a submitted manuscript from one journal if accepted by another journal. The withdrawal of manuscripts after the manuscripts are accepted for publication, the author will be punished by paying US$500 per manuscript. Withdrawal of manuscripts is only allowed after the withdrawal penalty has been fully paid to the Publisher.
If authors don’t agree to pay the penalty, the authors and their affiliations will be blacklisted for publication in this journal. Even their previously published articles will be removed from our online system.

Author Name Change Policy

IPMU supports the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) initiative and guidelines on an inclusive approach to author name changes. Authors who request a name change are required to disclose the reason for the request. Name change requests on behalf of others will not be considered. Authors can further contact the editor-in-chief via email to submit a name change request.

Back to Menu

Article Sharing Policy

For Authors

You may share your article at any stage of its publication process. Further details regarding this can be found below. You are permitted to share any version of your article with individual colleagues and students upon request, provided it is for teaching and training within your institution (excluding open online dissemination), as well as in the context of a grant application or submission for a thesis or doctoral dissertation. For information regarding the public sharing of your article, please refer to the relevant sections below.
Submitted Version: the author’s version that has not been peer-reviewed, nor had any value added to it by Wiley, such as formatting or copy editing):
Authors may post their submitted manuscript at any time on their website, in their company or institutional repository, in not-for-profit subject-based preprint servers or repositories, and on Scholarly Communication Networks (SCNs) that have signed up to the STM sharing principles. Authors may wish to add a note about acceptance by the journal upon publication. It is recommended that authors add a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) link back to the final article so users with access to Wiley Online Library may access the final version of the record and make use of the fully networked research environment. The deposited version may not be updated to look like the final version of the record. While this is the copyright policy, individual journals may operate different editorial policies for preprints, and authors should consult the relevant author guidelines.
Accepted Version: the version that incorporates all amendments made during the peer review process, but before the final published version:
Before the embargo* has passed authors may, in addition to posting metadata for the article, post the Accepted Version as a closed deposit (hidden until the embargo lifts) on their website, in their company or institutional repository, in not-for-profit subject-based preprint servers or repositories, and may share the article in private research groups including those on SCNs which have signed up to the STM sharing principles. The private research groups must be formed by invitation for a specific research purpose and be of a size that is typical for research groups within the discipline. Sharing of articles must be limited to members of the group only. The SCNs that have signed up to the sharing principles are required to provide COUNTER-compliant usage data to Wiley by agreement.
After the embargo has passed, the Accepted Version may be made public on these sites. The article must include a note and DOI link on the first page (see the self-archiving policy for more details) and must not be made to look like the final version of the record.
*There is an embargo period of 12 months from publication for scientific, medical, and technical (STM) journals and 24 months from publication for social science and humanities (SSH) journals. Please note that while this is the current standard Wiley policy and applies to all Wiley-owned journals, society journals set their embargo periods and some may be different. To find out the embargo policy of your journal, refer to the Author Compliance Tool.
Final Version of Record (the final published version):
There should be no public posting of final articles other than by agreement with Wiley unless the article is published under a Gold Open Access model.

Back to Menu

Preparing Your Article

Is the manuscript clearly written? Is the article exciting? Does the content flow well from one section to another? Please try to keep your manuscript on the proper level. It should be easy to understand by well-qualified professionals, but at the same time please avoid describing well-known facts (use proper references instead). Often manuscripts receive negative reviews because reviewers are not able to understand the manuscript, and this is the authors’ (not the reviewers’) fault. Notice that if reviewers have difficulties, then other readers will face the same problem and there is no reason to publish the manuscript.

Preparing your manuscript

Template and format

Is your manuscript written in IPMU format? At this stage, it is essential that you follow every detail of the IPMU format. Please try to follow the format as closely as possible. Be sure to carefully review our most up-to-date manuscript submission guidelines.
Title
Is your title adequate and is your abstract correctly written? The title is the part of a paper that is read the most, and it is usually read first. The title is max 10 words, without acronyms or abbreviations.

Authorship and corresponding author

Provide the complete author name without any abbreviation and complete their affiliation information.
One author should provide their contact information as corresponding authors as representatives to communicate with the editor.

Keywords

Provide five to ten keywords representing the main content of the article.

Abstract

The Abstract (MAX 200 WORDS) should be informative and completely self-explanatory (no citation in the abstract), provide a clear statement of the problem, the proposed approach or solution, and point out major findings and conclusions.

Presentation and structure

Authors are suggested to present their articles in the sections structure: 1. Introduction – 2. Proposed Method/Algorithm/Procedure specifically designed (optional) – 3. Research Method – 4. Results and Discussion – 5. Conclusion. Authors may present complex proofs of theorems or non-obvious proofs of the correctness of algorithms after the introduction section (obvious theorems & straightforward proofs of existing theorems are NOT needed).

  • Introduction section: explain the context of the study and state the precise objective. An Introduction should contain the following three parts (within 3-7 paragraphs):
    • Background: Authors have to make clear what the context is. Ideally, authors should give an idea of the state-of-the-art of the field the report is about.
    • Problem: If there was no problem, there would be no reason for writing a manuscript, and definitely no reason for reading it. So, please tell readers why they should proceed with reading. Experience shows that for this part a few lines are often sufficient.
    • Proposed Solution: Now and only now! – authors may outline the contribution of the manuscript. Here authors have to make sure readers point out what are the novel aspects of authors’ work.
      Authors should place the paper in proper context by citing relevant papers. At least 15 references (recent journal articles) are used in this section.
  • Method section: the presentation of the experimental methods should be clear and complete in every detail facilitating reproducibility by other scientists.
  • Results and discussion section: The presentation of results should be simple and straightforward in style. This section reports the most important findings, including results of statistical analyses as appropriate and comparisons to other research results. Results given in figures should not be repeated in tables. This is where the author(s) should explain in words what he/she/they discovered in the research. It should be clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. This section should be supported with suitable references.
  • Conclusion section: Summarize sentences the primary outcomes of the study in a paragraph. Are the claims in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?

Language

If an article is poorly written due to grammatical errors, it may make it more difficult to understand the science.

Figures and Tables

Relation of Tables or Figures and Text: Because tables and figures supplement the text, all tables and figures should be referenced in the text. Avoid placing figures and tables before their first mention in the text. Authors also must explain what the reader should look for when using the table or figure. Focus only on the important points the reader should draw from them and leave the details for the reader to examine on her own.
Figures:

  1. All figures appearing in the article must be numbered in the order that they appear in the text.
  2. Each figure must have a caption fully explaining the content
  3. Figure captions are presented as a paragraph starting with the figure number i.e. Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.
  4. Figure captions appear below the figure
  5. Each figure must be fully cited if taken from another article
  6. All figures must be referred to in the body of the article.

Tables:

  1. Material that is tabular in nature must appear in a numbered captioned table.
  2. All tables appearing in the article must be numbered in the order that they appear in the text.
  3. Each table must have a caption fully explaining the content with the table number i.e. Table 1, Table 2, etc.
  4. Each column must have a clear and concise heading
  5. Tables are to be presented with a single horizontal line under the table caption, the column headings, and at the end of the table.
  6. All tables must be referred to in the body of the article
  7. Each table must be fully cited if taken from another article.

Declaration and statement
Acknowledgments and funding statement.

This section should describe the sources of funding that have supported the work. Authors should clearly state how the research described in the article was funded, including any relevant grant numbers if applicable. If no funding was involved, authors should include the following (or similar) statement: “The authors state no funding involved.”

Author contributions

IPMU uses the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) to recognize individual author contributions, reduce authorship disputes, and facilitate collaboration. We encourage authors to include a statement in the paper that shares and accurately describes each author’s contribution. To be eligible for authorship, each individual must have contributed to at least one of the following: conceptualization, methodology, formal analysis, or investigation, as well as at least one aspect of writing (either original draft preparation or writing reviews and editing). And all of them approved the manuscript version to be published. There are 14 role taxonomies that can be used to describe the key types of contributions typically made to the production and publication of research output such as research articles.

Competing interests.

To ensure fair and objective decision-making, authors must declare any associations that pose a conflict of interest (financial, personal, or professional) in connection with the manuscript. Non-financial competing interests, including political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, and intellectual competing interests, must also be disclosed. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. If there are no conflicts of interest, the following statement should be included: “The authors state no conflict of interest.”

Consent for publication

If your manuscript includes any personal data (such as details, images, or videos) of an individual, you must obtain their consent to publish. For children, consent must be obtained from a parent or legal guardian. This applies to all case reports. You can use your institution’s consent form but do not send it with the submission. We may ask to see a copy at any time, even after publication.
If your manuscript does not contain data from any individual person, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

Data availability

Data Availability Statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available from [repository name, or “the corresponding author upon reasonable request”]. Restrictions may apply to the availability of these data due to [reasons such as privacy, ethical concerns, or proprietary data]. Alternatively, if no data is available, you can use:
“The authors declare that no data are available.”
This is How to present your statement data availability

  • The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in [repository’s name] at http://doi.org/[doi], reference number [reference number].
  • The data that support the findings of this study will be available in [repository’s name] [URL / DOI link] following a [6 month] embargo from the date of publication to allow for the commercialization of research findings.
  • The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author, [initials]. The data, which contain information that could compromise the privacy of research participants, are not publicly available due to certain restrictions.
  • Derived data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author [initials] on request.
  • The data that support the findings of this study are available from [third party]. Restrictions apply to the availability of these data, which were used under license for this study. Data are available [from the authors / at URL] with the permission of [third party].
  • The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or its supplementary materials].
  • The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [author initials], upon reasonable request.
  • Data availability does not apply to this paper as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Ethics declarations

Manuscripts reporting studies involving human participants, human data or human tissue must:

  • include a statement on ethics approval and consent (even where the need for approval was waived)
  • include the name of the ethics committee that approved the study and the committee’s reference number if appropriate

Studies involving animals must include a statement on ethics approval and for experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also include a statement on informed consent from the client or owner.
If your manuscript does not report on or involve the use of any animal or human data or tissue, please state “Not applicable” in this section.

References

Please be sure that the manuscript is relevant, up-to-date, balanced, dynamic, concise, and direct. Please ensure that all statements are supported by appropriate and up-to-date references (see 11).
Do you have enough references? The minimum number of references is 25 to 30 entries (and the 20 entries are recent journal articles) for original research articles, and the minimum number of references is 50 to 55 entries for review papers. Citations of textbooks should be used very rarely and citations to web pages should be avoided. All cited papers should be referenced within the text of the manuscript.

How to present your references
[1] Journal/Periodicals
Basic Format:
J. K. Author, “Title of paper,” Abbrev. Title of Journal/Periodical, vol. x, no. x, pp. xxx-xxx, Abbrev. Month, year, doi: xxx.
Examples:

  • M. M. Chiampi and L. L. Zilberti, “Induction of electric field in human bodies moving near MRI: An efficient BEM computational procedure,” IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., vol. 58, pp. 2787–2793, Oct. 2011, doi: 10.1109/TBME.2011.2158315.
  • R. Fardel, M. Nagel, F. Nuesch, T. Lippert, and A. Wokaun, “Fabrication of organic light emitting diode pixels by laser-assisted forward transfer,” Appl. Phys. Lett., vol. 91, no. 6, Aug. 2007, Art. no. 061103, doi: 10.1063/1.2759475.

[2] Conference Proceedings
Basic Format:
J. K. Author, “Title of paper,” in Abbreviated Name of Conf., (location of conference is optional), year, pp. xxx–xxx, doi: xxx.
Examples:

  • G. Veruggio, “The EURON roboethics roadmap,” in Proc. Humanoids ’06: 6th IEEE-RAS Int. Conf. Humanoid Robots, 2006, pp. 612–617, doi: 10.1109/ICHR.2006.321337.
  • J. Zhao, G. Sun, G. H. Loh, and Y. Xie, “Energy-efficient GPU design with reconfigurable in-package graphics memory,” in Proc. ACM/IEEE Int. Symp. Low Power Electron. Design (ISLPED), Jul. 2012, pp. 403–408, doi: 10.1145/2333660.2333752.

[3] Book
Basic Format:
J. K. Author, “Title of chapter in the book,” in Title of His Published Book, X. Editor, Ed., xth ed. City of Publisher, State (only U.S.), Country: Abbrev. of Publisher, year, ch. x, sec. x, pp. xxx–xxx.
Examples:

  • A. Taflove, Computational Electrodynamics: The Finite-Difference Time-Domain Method in Computational Electrodynamics II, vol. 3, 2nd ed. Norwood, MA, USA: Artech House, 1996.
  • R. L. Myer, “Parametric oscillators and nonlinear materials,” in Nonlinear Optics, vol. 4, P. G. Harper and B. S. Wherret, Eds., San Francisco, CA, USA: Academic, 1977, pp. 47–160.

[4] M. Theses (B.S., M.S.) and Dissertations (Ph.D.)
Basic Format:
J. K. Author, “Title of thesis,” M.S. thesis, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
J. K. Author, “Title of dissertation,” Ph.D. dissertation, Abbrev. Dept., Abbrev. Univ., City of Univ., Abbrev. State, year.
Examples:

  • J. O. Williams, “Narrow-band analyzer,” Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. Elect. Eng., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA, USA, 1993.
  • N. Kawasaki, “Parametric study of thermal and chemical nonequilibrium nozzle flow,” M.S. thesis, Dept. Electron. Eng., Osaka Univ., Osaka, Japan, 1993.

*In the reference list, however, list all the authors for up to six authors. Use et al. only if: 1) The names are not given and 2) List of authors more than 6. Example: J. D. Bellamy et al., Computer Telephony Integration, New York: Wiley, 2010.

  1. Use tools such as EndNote, Mendeley, or Zotero for reference management and formatting, and choose IEEE style. Each citation should be written in the order of appearance in the text in square brackets. For example, the first citation [1], the second citation [2], and the third and fourth citations [3], [4]. When citing multiple sources at once, the preferred method is to list each number separately, in its own brackets, using a comma or dash between numbers, such as: [1], [3], [5]. It is not necessary to mention an author’s name, pages used, or date of publication in the in-text citation. Instead, refer to the source with a number in a square bracket, e.g. [9], that will then correspond to the full citation in your reference list. Examples of in-text citations:
    • This theory was first put forward in 1970 [9].
    • Zadeh [10] has argued that …
    • Several recent studies [7], [9], [11]-[15] have suggested that….
    • … end of the line for my research [16].
  2. Self-citations: to control citation manipulation (COPE, 2019), this journal asks that authors keep self-citation to a minimum. We would strongly recommend no more than 5 (including jointly authored publications), or 20% self-citations, whichever number is lower.
  3. Please be aware that for the final submission of a regular paper, you will be asked to tailor your paper so the last page is not half empty.

Back to Menu

Submission for Peer Review

Submit Your Article for Peer Review
Avoid publication delays by understanding the process when you submit your article for peer review. IPMU guides you through the submission and peer review process with helpful tips and information. Learn more about the article submission process, peer review, and the decision process.

  • The IPMU Article Submission Process
  • About the Peer Review Process
  • Understanding the Decision Process
  • Checklist for Submitting Your Article for Peer Review
  • Ethics in Peer Review
  • Become an IPMU Reviewer

The IPMU Article Submission Process

After you have written your article and prepared your graphics, you can submit your article for review. Follow these steps to complete the IPMU Article Submission Process.

Select Your Target Journal

An article may be rejected before peer review if it is outside the scope of the journal. You can only submit your article to one publication at a time.

Follow All Submission Guidelines

All IPMU journals provide submission guidelines in an “Information for Authors” section, published on the journal’s website.
To find the guidelines for your target journal:

  • Find the journal’s home page;
  • Click on the About Journal tab;
  • Click on Publication Details.

Not following guidelines can result in delayed processing of your submission, rejection without review, or errors in your published article.

Submit Your Article

After checking that your article complies with the target journal’s submission guidelines, you are ready to submit.

About the Peer Review Process

About the Peer Review Process

Peer review is vital to the quality of published research. Your submitted article will be evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Feedback from the peer reviewers will contribute to the editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject your article for publication.

What is peer review and why is it important?

Peer review is essential for publishing high-quality research. It significantly improves the quality of articles by refining key arguments, identifying errors and omissions, and providing authors with constructive feedback and helpful suggestions. Furthermore, it acts as a crucial filter, ensuring that only rigorously vetted research reaches publication. Reviewers, who are independent experts in the relevant field, critically assess the quality, validity, and originality of the research findings.

How does it work?

IPMU publication policy requires at least two qualified reviewers to evaluate a submitted article before the editor can accept that article for publication.

  1. The journal editor invites reviewers who are experts in your article’s subject matter to evaluate the article and provide feedback.
  2. Reviewers comment on a variety of points such as whether the study is well designed or if the results are too preliminary. Reviewers can help authors hone key points, identify and resolve errors, and generate new ideas.
  3. The reviewers’ feedback informs the editor’s decision on whether to accept or reject the article.

IPMU uses a single-blinded review model where the names of the reviewers are not shared with the author but the reviewers are aware of the author’s identity.

What are editors and reviewers looking for?

During the peer review process, editors, and reviewers look for the following.

  • Scope: Is the article appropriate for this publication?
  • Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?
  • Validity: Is the study well designed and executed?
  • Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?
  • Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?
  • Compliance: Are all ethical and journal requirements met?
  • Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?

Understanding the Decision Process

What happens when you receive the decision letter? After peer review, the editor will consider feedback from the reviewers and then make a decision about the article. The decision letter is delivered to the author via email.
There are three basic types of decisions: Accept, Revise, and Reject. No matter which decision you receive, be sure to read the entire decision letter carefully. Pay attention to deadlines and next steps.

Accept

Upon acceptance, you may be asked to complete additional steps. For example, providing final high-quality files or signing a publishing agreement. Promptly complete any requested tasks to avoid publication delays.

Revise

This means you will be asked to make changes to your article and resubmit it for further review. The required revisions can vary in scope, from minor corrections to substantial rewriting. The decision letter will detail the reviewers’ suggestions for improvement. When resubmitting your revised manuscript, it is crucial to include a point-by-point response addressing each suggestion raised by the reviewers.

Resubmit for Review

Resubmit for Review implies that the journal is still considering the manuscript but needs to see improvements before making a final decision on acceptance or rejection.
After making the necessary revisions, the manuscript is resubmitted to the journal for another round of review, either by the same reviewers or by new ones.

Decline

A declined decision will be accompanied by a letter explaining the reasons for the rejection. This letter may also offer suggestions for improving your manuscript before you submit it elsewhere.

Checklist for Submitting Your Article for Peer Review

Checklist for Submitting Your Article for Peer Review

Get ready for peer review. IPMU has created a checklist for submitting your article to ensure you do not miss any important steps.
While preparing to submit your article for peer review, make sure you do the following.

  • Select your target publication.
  • Review the submission guidelines for your target publication to ensure your article meets all requirements.
  • Agree on who will serve as the article’s corresponding author if your article has multiple authors.
  • Check that you have all necessary files.
  • Get an Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) if you do not have one already.

Ethics in Peer Review

Ethics in Peer Review

Peer review is a system based on trust. Each party relies on the others to operate professionally, ethically, and confidentially. Learn about the ethical responsibilities of the reviewer, the author, and the publication during peer review.

Responsibilities of the Reviewer

  • Provide a prompt, thorough, and impartial review of the article.
  • Give constructive feedback with reasonable suggestions and professional tone.
  • Avoid suggesting the addition of irrelevant or unnecessary references.
  • Alert the editor to any suspected ethical issues.
  • Maintain confidentiality by safeguarding the unique contributions of the author’s work.

Responsibilities of the Author

  • Accurately report research findings.
  • Ensure that the article meets all publication requirements and adheres to ethical standards.
  • Revise the article as per reviewers’ suggestions (or give a reason why not).

Responsibilities of the Publication

The publication’s responsibilities may be fulfilled by a journal Editor or Associate Editor.

  • Select, invite, and manage reviewers.
  • Ensure a fair and speedy peer review process.
  • Synthesize disparate peer review reports and arrive at a final decision.
  • Maintain confidentiality by preserving the reviewer’s anonymity and by safeguarding the unique contributions of the author’s work.
  • Uphold all policies of the publication, including ethical policies.

Any questions from authors or reviewers about the peer review process should be directed to the Editor.

Become an IPMU Reviewer

Contribute to the research in your field by becoming an IPMU peer reviewer. Peer reviewers fulfill a vital role in the publishing process by giving detailed and professional commentary. Continue reading to learn more about being an IPMU peer reviewer or download one of our guides below.

Starting the process

To be considered as a reviewer, you must create an account for the submission site for the particular publication you would like to review for. Once you create the account, your name will be added to a pool of potential reviewers.
As part of the initial process of creating your account, be sure to choose keywords that accurately and best describe your areas of expertise. IPMU publications match the topics covered in an article submission with potential peer reviewers who are experts in those topics. After identifying reviewers, the publication will send out invitations. Most invitations will include information about the article, such as the title and abstract, to help the reviewer decide if they should accept the invitation.

Receiving a peer review invitation

When you receive a review invitation, you should consider whether you have sufficient expertise in the article’s subject area. You should also consider if you can complete the review by the deadline provided in the review invitation.

  • If the answer to either of those questions is “no,” you should promptly decline the invitation. Suggestions of other potential reviewers are always appreciated.
  • If you decide to accept the invitation, follow the instructions in the email to signal your acceptance. You will then receive information on how to access the article and conduct your review.

Submitting feedback

Most publications use an online submission system to facilitate peer review. Once you have accepted the review invitation, you will be given access to the article. You should evaluate the article with the following questions in mind.

  • Is the study well-designed and well-executed?
  • Is the existing body of relevant work acknowledged?
  • Are the results interpreted and reported correctly? Have all other possible interpretations been duly considered?
  • Are the results overly preliminary or speculative?
  • Does the research contribute to the body of scientific knowledge in the field?
  • Is the article appropriate for this publication?
  • Is the article written in clear, concise language?

Follow the publication’s instructions for submitting feedback, suggestions, and a recommended decision. Remember that your commentary should always be thorough and professional.

Policy on AI generation of text for a review

Any information or content related to a manuscript under review must not be processed through public platforms (directly or indirectly) for the generation of text using artificial intelligence (AI) for review purposes. Such actions are considered a breach of confidentiality, as AI systems typically learn from all inputs provided.

Back to Menu

Your Role in Article Production

IPMU makes the article production process easy for our authors. Follow these steps to keep your article moving quickly from acceptance to publication.

  1. Inform your co-authors if they are not included in the decision letter.
  2. Read the decision letter carefully for any additional tasks such as uploading final high-quality files or signing a copyright form. Production on your article will not begin until these tasks are completed.
  3. Your article will be prepared for publication. To track the progress of your article, contact your dedicated IPMU Journals Production Manager.
  4. You will be contacted when an article proof PDF is ready for review. This is the last time you will be able to make changes to the article before publication. Review the proof carefully and submit any edits.
  5. Typically, your article will be finalized within 2-3 weeks from the start of the production process. Actual production time can vary depending on the individual journal’s publication constraints.

Back to Menu

When Your Article is Published

Congratulations on publishing your article! It will appear in the IPMUGo Digital Library.