European Mechanical Science (EMS) is committed to the principles of transparency, objectivity, respect for scientific integrity, and adherence to the ethical guidelines of academic publishing. The journal upholds the highest standards of publication ethics and expects all parties involved in the publication process—including authors, reviewers, the Editor-in-Chief, and Editorial Board members—to act in accordance with the responsibilities set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Publication Ethics

1.1 Responsibilities of Authors

Authors submitting a manuscript to EMS are expected to:

• Originality: Submit only original and unpublished work. Proper citations must be provided for any referenced materials.
• Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential financial or personal conflicts of interest related to the submitted work.
• Data Accuracy: Ensure that all data presented are accurate, valid, and obtained ethically. Raw data may be requested by the editorial team if needed.
• Authorship Contribution: List only those who have made significant contributions as authors. Ghost authorship and honorary authorship are not acceptable.
• Ethical Approval: For studies involving human or animal subjects, proper ethical committee approvals and participant consents must be obtained and documented in the manuscript.
• Reporting Errors: Notify the journal immediately upon discovering an error in a submitted or published article. Corrections or retractions will be issued where necessary.
• No Simultaneous Submissions: Manuscripts under review or published elsewhere must not be submitted.
• Authorship Order: The order of authors cannot be changed after the submission is completed.

1.2 Responsibilities of the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board

• Objectivity and Independence: Manuscripts are evaluated solely based on academic merit, originality, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without regard to authors' race, gender, religion, or political views.
• Peer Review Process: The Editor-in-Chief ensures that suitable reviewers are assigned to each manuscript and that the single-blind peer review process is conducted fairly and confidentially.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Information is not disclosed to third parties without the author's consent.
• Managing Misconduct: In cases of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or other unethical practices, the editorial team will initiate an investigation according to COPE guidelines.
• Handling Conflicts of Interest: Editors must recuse themselves from the review process if a conflict of interest exists. All such cases are delegated to another editor.
• Communication with Authors and Reviewers: Editors maintain clear and constructive communication with authors. Reviewers are provided with guidance and are expected to provide high-quality, impartial evaluations.
• Final Decisions: The Editor-in-Chief has the sole and independent authority to make final decisions regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection, based on reviewer comments and scientific merit.
• Corrections and Retractions: When errors or ethical violations are found in published articles, editors initiate transparent correction or retraction processes as required.

1.3 Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Impartiality: Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based solely on scientific merit, avoiding personal bias.
• Confidentiality: Manuscripts and review content must be kept confidential and not shared with others.
• Conflict of Interest: If a reviewer recognizes a conflict of interest, they must inform the editor and decline to review the manuscript.
• Timeliness: Reviews should be submitted within the specified timeframe. Delays should be communicated to the editor in advance.
• Constructive Feedback: Reviewers are expected to provide detailed, objective, and constructive feedback, avoiding personal or unprofessional language.
• Reporting Ethical Concerns: Any indication of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other ethical concerns must be reported to the editor.

1.4 Responsibilities of the Publisher

• Editorial Independence: The publisher respects the full autonomy of the Editor-in-Chief and does not interfere with editorial decisions.
• Support for Ethical Publishing: The publisher supports the use of plagiarism detection tools and upholds publication ethics in accordance with COPE.
• Transparency and Accountability: The publisher ensures that all content published in EMS meets scientific and ethical standards and facilitates transparent complaint handling procedures.
• Freedom of Expression: The publisher promotes academic freedom and open discussion of scientific results.
• Implementation of Ethical Policies: The publisher enforces journal-wide compliance with the ethical policies defined by EMS and COPE.

2. Publication Process and Quality Assurance

2.1 Editorial Workflow and Decision-Making

EMS follows a transparent and rigorous editorial workflow. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on scientific quality, originality, and compliance with ethical standards. After passing the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is assigned to an appropriate Editorial Board member for further handling. Based on peer-review reports and the editor’s assessment, the final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief. Decisions may include:

• Acceptance
• Minor or major revision
• Rejection

Detailed information on the review process can be found on the journal’s Peer Review Policy page.

2.2 Plagiarism and Originality Checks
EMS follows a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. Authors must confirm that their work is original, has not been published elsewhere, and is not under consideration by another journal.

• All submissions are checked using plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with a similarity index exceeding 20% may be rejected or returned for correction.
  
• Self-plagiarism is not permitted. Substantial reuse of previously published material without appropriate citation is considered unethical.
  
• Citations and references must be complete and accurate. Misattribution or omission of sources may be treated as a violation of ethical standards.

2.3 Corrections, Retractions, and Complaints
When significant errors or ethical issues are identified in published articles, EMS initiates correction or retraction procedures as follows:

• Corrections: If minor errors are identified post-publication, authors will be asked to submit a correction notice.
  
• Retractions: In cases of serious ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism or data fabrication), the article will be formally retracted with a public notice.
  
• Complaints: Authors, reviewers, or readers may report ethical concerns. All complaints will be handled impartially and thoroughly by the editorial team. Corrective actions will be taken where necessary.

2.4 Data and Privacy Protection
EMS protects the confidentiality of all authors, reviewers, and participants. During the review process, the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential as part of the single-blind review system.

• Participant Data: Any identifiable personal data related to research participants must not be published without explicit consent.
  
• Data Sharing: Research data must not be disclosed without permission, and should only be shared with editors or reviewers upon request and with appropriate ethical safeguards.

2.5 Scientific Integrity and Transparency
EMS promotes transparency and accuracy in scientific reporting. Authors must report all findings honestly and without fabrication or manipulation.

• Data Availability: Authors are encouraged to make research data available or accessible upon request.
  
• Funding and Conflicts of Interest: Authors must clearly disclose all sources of funding and any conflicts of interest in their manuscripts.
  
  

3. Addressing Unethical Behavior

3.1 Plagiarism, Data Manipulation, and Fraud
EMS adopts a strict stance against all forms of scientific misconduct, including:

• Plagiarism: Using others’ work or ideas without proper citation is considered a serious offense. Suspected cases will result in investigation and possible rejection or retraction.
  
• Data Manipulation: Falsification, selective reporting, or deliberate alteration of data is strictly prohibited.
  
• Fabrication: Creating fictitious data, results, or citations is considered a major violation and will result in retraction and notification to the author’s institution if necessary.

3.2 Ensuring Academic Integrity

All stakeholders—authors, reviewers, and editors—are expected to maintain the highest standards of academic integrity:

• Authors: Must ensure the originality and accuracy of all content submitted.
  
• Reviewers: Must evaluate manuscripts fairly, based only on scientific merit, and must disclose any conflicts of interest.
  
• Editors: Are responsible for fair and impartial decisions and must act transparently throughout the editorial process.
  
  

3.3 Managing Conflicts of Interest
To maintain objectivity and transparency:

• Authors: Must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest at the time of submission.
• Reviewers: Must recuse themselves if they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors.
• Editors: Must avoid handling submissions in which they have a conflict of interest and delegate such cases to another editorial board member.
  

3.4 Handling Ethical Complaints
EMS is committed to fair and transparent resolution of all ethical complaints. The process includes:

• Reporting: Ethical concerns may be raised by any party (authors, reviewers, readers) and must be submitted in writing to the Editor-in-Chief.
  
• Investigation: The editorial team will conduct a detailed and impartial investigation. If needed, external experts or ethics committees may be consulted.
  
• Outcome: If misconduct is confirmed, appropriate actions such as retraction, correction, or suspension from submission privileges will be implemented. All decisions will be publicly communicated where necessary.

4. Policy on the Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI)

European Mechanical Science (EMS) supports transparency and responsible use of emerging technologies, including Generative AI (GenAI) tools such as ChatGPT, Bard, and others.

4.1. Authors
Authors must disclose any use of GenAI tools in the creation of the submitted manuscript. These tools may be used for language improvement or editing purposes only, and under the following conditions:

• GenAI tools must not be listed as co-authors.
  
• The use of GenAI must be declared in the "Acknowledgments" or "Methods" section.
  
• Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all content generated with or without AI tools.
  

Suggested statement (if applicable):

• “The authors used [Tool name, e.g., ChatGPT] to improve language clarity. The final manuscript was reviewed and approved by all authors.”
  

4.2. Reviewers and Editors
EMS does not permit the use of Generative AI tools for peer review or editorial decisions, as such tools may not preserve confidentiality or academic integrity. Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts based solely on their own expertise.

4.3. Ethical Compliance
EMS aligns with the recommendations of COPE and Elsevier regarding the responsible use of AI. Undisclosed or inappropriate use of GenAI tools may be considered a breach of publication ethics.

5. Research Involving Human and Animal Subjects

EMS is committed to upholding ethical standards in research involving human participants and animal subjects. Authors must ensure that all studies comply with internationally recognized ethical guidelines and applicable laws.

5.1 Ethics Committee Approval
For any research involving human or animal subjects, prior ethical approval must be obtained from a recognized institutional ethics committee.

• Human Research: Studies involving human participants must adhere to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and must receive approval from an institutional review board (IRB). The ethics approval number, name of the ethics committee, and date of approval must be clearly stated in the manuscript.
  
• Animal Research: Research involving animals must comply with international and national guidelines for animal welfare. Authors must declare that appropriate ethical approval has been obtained and include the approval number in the manuscript.

5.2 Protection of Human Participants
Authors must respect the rights, dignity, and privacy of human participants.

• Informed Consent: Participants must be fully informed about the research, including its purpose, procedures, potential risks, and benefits, and must voluntarily agree to participate. Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained.
  
• Privacy and Confidentiality: Identifying information (such as names, photographs, or case details) must not be published unless explicit written consent is obtained. Authors must ensure that participant anonymity is protected at all times.
  

5.3 Animal Welfare and Ethical Standards
Studies involving animal subjects must demonstrate a clear commitment to minimizing animal suffering and adhering to ethical research practices.

• ARRIVE Guidelines: Authors are encouraged to follow the ARRIVE (Animal Research: Reporting of In Vivo Experiments) guidelines when reporting animal experiments.
  
• Minimization Principle: The number of animals used must be the minimum necessary to achieve valid results. Pain, distress, and suffering must be minimized, and animal welfare must be closely monitored throughout the study.

Final Notes:
Authors who fail to comply with these ethical requirements may have their manuscripts rejected or retracted. EMS reserves the right to request ethics approval documentation, consent forms, or further clarification from authors at any point during the review or publication process.