SEISENSE publishes articles on rolling baes. It means articles are published as soon as they are peer-reviewed, accepted, copyedited, and proofread.
Open Access Policy
This journal 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.
Article Processing Charges
At SEISENSE we guarantee that no university library or individual reader will ever have to buy a subscription or pay any pay-per-view fees to access articles in the electronic version of the journal. We do not want fees to prevent the publication of worthy work. So, there is no submission or publication fee for the journal.
SEISENSE is a complete academic publishing portal, run by active researchers, that enables the publication of a journal. The service is organized around two key principles: openness and quality. Open Access is free for readers and authors, decoupling the scientific and financial issues. SBR works as a non-profit foundation, with an editorial board, and reviewers – all working on a volunteer basis. To offset the financial cost, SBR works with supporting partners, funding national/international bodies, foundations, and benefactors. We are thankful to PKP – for providing Open Journal System platform and sponsoring SBR for Crossref DOI.
SBR allows and encourages authors to deposit both their pre- and post-prints in Open-Access institutional archives or repositories. All authors hold full copyright and self-archiving rights. Authors are allowed to archive their articles in open access repositories as “post-prints”. In order to digitally preserve all published scholarly content, the SBR commits to submit the metadata of all its journals to the PKP Preservation Network (PN). This is to make sure that the published scholarly content by SEISENSE Publishing remains available to the community despite any accidental loss of data in its personal archival records. SEISENSE Publishing has further made sure that the metadata of its open-access journal is compliant with well-known repository services and their digital crawlers may regularly collect it for record and preservation.
Peer Review Process
SBR uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting to the journal:
- Submit the Title Page containing the author's details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files.
- After a paper is submitted to SBR, a journal editor screens the manuscript and generates a plagiarism report using Turnitin. If the manuscript falls in the journal scope and plagiarism is below 10% the handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. If a paper does not pass through the stage, the handling editor rejects the paper on a desk.
- Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
- Finally, SBR editors or the editorial board consider the peer reviewers’ reports and make the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.
All research articles published by SBR are subject to rigorous ethical standards. SBR endorses the Code of Conduct of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as the COPE International Standards for Editors and Authors Guidelines.
Editorship — SBR strongly supports the mission of the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Authorship — All those who have made a significant contribution should be given chance to be cited as authors. Other individuals who have contributed to the work should be acknowledged. Articles should include a full list of the current institutional affiliations of all authors, both academic and corporate.
Plagiarism — The section editor of the assigned article will immediately screen all articles submitted for publication in the journal. All submissions we receive are checked by using plagiarism detection online available tools such as Turnitin. Corrections and retractions All authors have an obligation to inform and corporate with journal editors to provide prompt retractions or corrections of errors in published works.
The journal will issue retractions if:
- There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error);
- The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission, or justification (i.e. cases of redundant publication);
- It constitutes plagiarism;
- It reports unethical research.
The journal will issue errata if:
- A small portion of an otherwise reliable publication proves to be misleading (especially because of honest error);
- The author list is incorrect (i.e. a deserving author has been omitted or somebody who does not meet authorship criteria has been included).
Other forms of misconduct include failure to meet clear ethical and legal requirements such as misrepresentation of interests, breach of confidentiality, lack of informed consent, and abuse of research subjects or materials. Misconduct also includes improper dealing with infringements, such as attempts to cover up misconduct and reprisals on whistleblowers. The primary responsibility for handling research misconduct is in the hands of those who employ the researchers. If a possible misconduct is brought to our attention, we will seek advice from the referees and the Editorial Board. If there is the evidence, we will resolve the matter by appropriate corrections by refusing to consider an author's future work, for a given period, and by contacting affected authors and editors of other journals.
Conflict of Interest
SBR requires all authors and reviewers to declare any conflicts of interest that may be inherent in their submissions. Conflict of interest for a given manuscript exists when a participant in the peer review and publication process – author, reviewer, or editor – has ties to activities that could inappropriately influence his or her judgment, whether or not judgment is in fact affected. Financial relationships with industry, for example, through employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, expert testimony, either directly or through immediate family, are usually considered to be the most important conflicts of interest. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
Editors — May request that authors of a study funded by an agency with a proprietary or financial interest in the outcome sign a statement, such as "I had full access to all of the data in this study and I take complete responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis."
Authors — When they submit a manuscript, whether an article or a letter, authors are responsible for recognizing and disclosing financial and other conflicts of interest that might bias their work. They should acknowledge in the manuscript all financial support for the work and other financial or personal connections to the work.
Reviewers — External peer reviewers should disclose to editors any conflicts of interest that could bias their opinions of the manuscript, and they should disqualify themselves from reviewing specific manuscripts if they believe it appropriate. The editors must be made aware of reviewers’ conflicts of interest to interpret the reviews and judge for themselves whether the reviewer should be disqualified. Reviewers should not use knowledge of the work, before its publication, to further their own interests.
Copyright and Licensing
Authors retain the copyright of the article. Authors grant SBR an irrevocable non-exclusive license to publish the article electronically and in print format and to identify itself as the original publisher. Authors can grant any third party the right to use the article freely as long as its original authors and citation details are identified. The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same license: Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Under the following conditions:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licenser endorses you or your use. No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.