•  
  •  
 

Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)

Policies

  • Section Policies
  • Peer Review Process
  • Open Access Policy
  • Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
  • Allegation Missconduct
  • Complaints and Appeals
  • Process for Handling Cases
  • Direct Marketing Policy
  • Ethical Oversight
  • Informed Concent Policy
  • Information for Author

      • Section Policies

      Articles

      • Open Submissions
      • Indexed
      • Peer Reviewed

      { top }

      Peer Review Process

      The below-given flowchart explains the manuscript submission at a glance. Once the manuscript is submitted for publication, it is subjected to screening, quality assessment, reviewing, and further production processing involving language assessment, figure improvement, preparation of proofs, and incorporation of required corrections.

      The submitted manuscript will be reviewed first by the Editor in Chief. It will be evaluated whether it is suitable for the Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) focus and scope or has a major methodological flaw. If it meets the requirements, the similarity verification process will be conducted using the Turnitin software. When manuscript have similarity more than 20%, the manuscript is returned to the author for revision and resubmitted it. When the manuscript meets the requirements, it will be reviewed by a minimum of 2 reviewers through a double-blind process. The results of the review process are presented as a basis for the editor in making decisions. If the reviewer suggests revisions, it will be sent to the author to make revisions, and the review process will continue until round 2. Acceptance of the submitted articles considers the reviewer's suggestions and recommendations. After the article has been revised correctly, the manuscript will proceed to the production process. Articles will be published after the closing meeting of the Editorial Board.

      peer review process

      { top }

      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.

      { top }

      Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

      JMEST is a peer-reviewed journal published by the Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Universitas Negeri Malang, Indonesia. JMEST is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. Authors who submit papers to JMEST attest that their work is original and unpublished, and is not under consideration for publication elsewhere. In addition, authors confirm that their paper is their own; that it has not been copied or plagiarized, in whole or in part, from other works; and that they have disclosed actual or potential conflicts of interest with their work or partial benefits associated with it. This statement clarifies the ethical behaviour of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the Chief editor, the Editorial Board, the peer-reviewer and the publisher.

      Journal publisher code ethics

      1. Determining the name of the journal, the scope of science, the timeline, and the accreditation.
      2. Determining the membership of the editorial board.
      3. Defining the relationship between publishers, editors, peer review, and other parties in the contract.
      4. Appreciating the confidentiality of the contributing researchers, author, editor, and peer review.
      5. Applying the norms and regulations regarding intellectual property rights, especially on copyrights.
      6. Conducting the policy reviews on the journals and presenting them to the authors, editorial board, peer review, and readers.
      7. Making the behavior code guidelines for editor and peer review.
      8. Publishing journals on a regular basis.
      9. Ensuring the availability of resources for sustainability journal publishing.
      10. Establishing cooperation and marketing networks.
      11. Preparing for the licensing and other legal aspects.

      Editor code ethics

      1. Improving the quality of publications.
      2. Ensuring the process to maintain the quality of published papers.
      3. Leading the freedom in delivering opinion.
      4. Maintaining the integrity of the author's academic track record.
      5. Conveying corrections, clarifications, withdrawal, and an apology if necessary.
      6. Owning the responsibility for styling and formatting the paper, while the contents and any statements in the paper are the responsibility of the authors.     
      7. Assessing policies and attitudes of the published journal from the author and peer review to increase responsibility and minimize errors.
      8. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinion or views of others who are different than their personal opinion. 
      9. Prohibiting in defending our own opinion, the author or third parties, which may result in a false decision.
      10. Encouraging the author in order to make improvements to the paper until it is worth publishing.

      Peer review code ethic

      1. Receiving the task from the editors to review the papers and submit the review to the editor as a matter of determining the feasibility of the paper for publication.
      2. Reviewing the papers in a timely manner (on time) in accordance with the style guide based on scientific principles (method of data collection, the legality of the author, conclusions, etc.).
      3. Reviewing the papers that have been corrected in accordance with the standards.
      4. Encouraging the author to make improvements in the papers by providing feedback, suggestions, feedback, and recommendations.
      5. Maintaining the author's privacy by covering the results of the corrections, suggestions, and recommendations received by the author.
      6. Reviewers must not review any papers that involve the reviewers in their work, directly or indirectly.
      7. Following the guidelines for peer review in reviewing papers and assessing the evaluation form paper given by the editors.
      8. Reviewing papers substantively by not correcting the grammar, punctuation, and mistype.
      9. Ensuring the principles of truth, novelty, and originality; prioritizing the benefit of the paper for the development of science, technology, and innovation; also comprehending the impact on the development of science writing.
      10. Prohibiting in defending own opinion, the author, or third parties, which may result in decision reference becoming non-objective.
      11. Upholding the value of objectivity and free from any influences. 
      12. Ensuring the confidentiality of findings in the paper until it is published.   
      13. Having a broad understanding of the expertise and being able to provide a review of the paper appropriately and correctly.
      14. Refusing to do a review if the research is not from the field of expertise. Instead, the peer review should be giving recommendations to the researcher if there is any other expert on the subjects.
      15. Having an open-minded personality in accepting the new opinion or views of others who are different than their personal opinion.
      16. Refusing to do the review if the deadline given by the editor cannot be reached. If absent, the peer reviewer should notify the editor as early as possible.
      17. The results of the review must be presented in an honest, objective and supported by clear arguments. Some possible recommendations from the review are:
          • Accepted without revision
          • Accepted with minor revision (after repaired by the author, it is not necessary to go to peer review)
          • Accepted with major revision (after repaired by the author, return to the peer review for re-review)
          • Rejected and recommended for other publication
          • Rejected and recommended not to publish to any publication because scientifically, the paper is flawed for the community.
      1. Giving rejection for the last recommendation as the last choice related to the feasibility of the papers or with indication of severe violations of the code of ethics related to the author.
    • Reviewed papers aren’t allowed to be used for personal or third-party interests. Moreover, The use of some of the contents of the reviewed papers must have received permission from the author.

      • Author/article writer code ethics

      1. Author is collectively responsible for the work and the content of the article, which cover methods, analysis, calculation, and its details.
      2. Author immediately responds to the comments made by the peer review professionally and timely.
      3. Author should inform the editor if they retract their paper.       
      4. The author describes the limitations of the study.
      5. Author respects the publishers if they demand to not to publish the findings in the form of interviews or through any other media before the publication.
      6. The author informs the editor of (a) paper that is part of a phased research, multidisciplinary, and different perspectives.       
      7. The author makes a statement that the papers submitted for publication are original, have not been published anywhere in any language, and are not in the process of submission to another publisher.
      8. If there is any error in the paper, the author should immediately notify the editor or publisher.
      9. The use of materials from other publications which are copyrighted, should be given written permission and gratitude.
      10. The author refers to the work of others as appropriate in citations and quotations used in the paper.
      11. When delivering new discoveries or improving inventions, the authors should mention the job previous researcher/writer/founder.
      12. The author is not allowed to give a bibliography of the publications if they do not read the publication.
      13. If requested, the authors prepared the proof that the research has already met the requirements of the research ethics, including the field notes.
      14. Author adequately responds if there are any comments or feedback after the paper is published.

      Publication Ethics code referenced by the Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) based on Buku Peraturan Kepala LIPI is sourced from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Scientific Publication Ethics Code by LIPI can be downloaded here.

      { top }

      Allegation Missconduct

      Plagiarism

      1. Plagiarism includes, but is not limited to:
      1. Refer and/or quoting terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing sources in the record citation and/or without stating the source adequately;
      2. Refer and/or quoting random terms, words and/or sentences, data and/or information from a source without citing a source in the record citation and/or without stating the source adequately;
      3. Using a source of ideas, opinions, views, or theory without stating the source adequately;
      4. Formulate the words and/or sentences themselves from the source of words and/or phrases, ideas, opinions, views, or theory without stating the source adequately;
      5. Submit a scientific paper produced and/or published by others as a source of scientific work without express adequately.

      Prevention

      Every article submitted to the Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) will be checked by plagiarism software (Turnitin software) to assure that:

      1. The article is free of plagiarism;
      2. if at a later proved there is plagiarism in the article, the author is willing to accept the sanctions in accordance with the legislation.

      Data fabrication 

      This concerns the making up of research findings.

      • Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript
      • Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript

      Data falsification

      Manipulating research data with the intention of giving a false impression. This includes manipulating images (e.g., micrographs, gels, radiological images), removing outliers or “inconvenient” results, changing, adding or omitting data points, etc.

      Duplicate submissions

      Duplicate submission is a situation whereby an author submits the same or similar manuscripts to two different journals at the same time, either within Academic Journals or any other publisher. This includes the submission of manuscripts derived from the same data in such a manner that there are no substantial differences in the manuscripts. Duplicate submission also includes the submission of the same/similar manuscript in different languages to different journals.

      Authorship issues

      Clear policies (that allow for transparency around who contributed to the work and in what capacity) should be in place for requirements for authorship and contributor ship, as well as processes for managing potential disputes.

      Citation manipulation

      Citation Manipulation includes excessive citations in the submitted manuscript that do not contribute to the scholarly content of the article and have been included solely for the purpose of increasing citations to a given author’s work or to articles published in a particular journal. This leads to misrepresenting the importance of the specific work and journal in which it appears and is thus a form of scientific misconduct.

      Suspected manipulation of peer review/bias of peer reviews

      International Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST)selects the reviewers on any manuscript with due care so as to avoid any conflict of interest between the reviewers and the authors. Our policy is compliant with COPE Guidelines on peer review.

      Sanctions

      1. Reprimand;
      2. Letter of warning;
      3. Revocation of the article;
      4. Cancellation of publication.

      Letter of Statement of free Plagiarism can be downloaded here

      { top }

      Complaints and Appeals

      JMEST will implement a transparent procedure for addressing complaints regarding the journal, its Editorial Staff, Editorial Board, or Publisher. Complaints will be directed to the appropriate person based on the nature of the issue. These complaints can pertain to any aspect of the journal’s operations, such as the editorial process, citation manipulation, unfair treatment by editors or reviewers, or manipulation of the peer-review process. All complaints will be handled in accordance with COPE guidelines.

      { top }

      Process for Handling Cases

      The journal ensures that all of its published articles follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE (https://publicationethics.org/guidance).  

      Our objective is to uphold the credibility of the academic record for all published or potential publications. If we identify a substantial inaccuracy, misleading statement, or distorted report in any publication, we are committed to correcting it promptly and giving it appropriate visibility. In cases where a thorough investigation confirms fraudulent content, we will retract the item. The retraction will be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.

      Corrections

      Mistakes found in published papers may be addressed through a corrigendum or erratum when the Editor-in-Chief deems it necessary to inform the journal's readership about a prior error and takes steps to rectify it in the published article. The corrigendum or erratum will be presented as a new article within the journal and will reference the original published article.

      Retractions

      Retractions are initiated and disclosed when significant errors within an article render its conclusions invalid. Retractions are also enacted when there is substantiated evidence of publication misconduct, including plagiarism, redundant publication, or unethical research practices.

      According to industry best practice and in accordance with COPE guidelines, JMEST implements the following procedure if a retraction is confirmed:

      1. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list.
      2. In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
      3. The online article is preceded by a screen containing the retraction note. It is to this screen that the link resolves; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.
      4. The original article is retained unchanged save for a watermark on the HTML and PDF indicating on each page that it has been “retracted.”

      Editorial expressions of concern

      When significant uncertainty arises regarding the authenticity or ethical conduct related to a submitted or published article, journal editors may contemplate issuing an expression of concern. This course of action is typically taken when an investigation into the issues surrounding the article has yielded inconclusive results, yet there are compelling indications that the concerns raised are credible. In rare instances, an editorial expression of concern may also be warranted when an investigation is ongoing but a final determination will not be promptly available.

      The expression of concern will be linked back to the published article it relates to.

      { top }

      Direct Marketing Policy

      The Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) adheres to the principles set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). JMEST acknowledges the significance of upholding ethical standards in the realm of direct marketing. This Direct Marketing Policy serves as a comprehensive document, delineating the directives governing direct marketing endeavors linked to JMEST. These guidelines are designed to ensure that all marketing initiatives are in harmony with the journal's core values, safeguard the privacy of individuals, and furnish recipients with information that is pertinent and beneficial.

      JMEST policy for Direct Marketing:

      1. Consent and Privacy:
      • JMEST is committed to strict adherence to relevant data protection and privacy regulations. This commitment extends to all direct marketing endeavors, wherein JMEST will meticulously follow the prerequisites for obtaining consent from individuals as mandated by such regulation.
      • Individuals who receive direct marketing communications will be provided with the choice to unsubscribe or decline to receive additional marketing messages.
      1. Transparency and Accuracy:
      • Direct marketing communications from JMEST will distinctly indicate the sender's identity and furnish precise details about the journal and its array of offerings.
      • Any claims or statements presented in direct marketing materials will be grounded in accurate and current information.
      1. Targeted and Relevant Marketing:
      • JMEST will strive to ensure that direct marketing efforts are targeted and relevant to the recipients.
      • Marketing communications will be tailored to the interests and preferences of the recipients, taking into account their previous interactions with JMEST.
      1. Frequency and Timing:
      • JMEST will carefully control the frequency and timing of direct marketing communications to prevent overbearing or intrusive messaging.
      • Marketing messages will be dispatched at suitable intervals, in accordance with recipients' preferences, and with the utmost consideration for preventing any form of harassment.
      1. Compliance with Laws and Regulations:
      • JMEST will adhere to all pertinent laws and regulations pertaining to direct marketing, encompassing anti-spam regulations and laws safeguarding consumer rights.
      • Direct marketing activities will align with the guidelines provided by COPE and other relevant industry standards.
      1. Review and Monitoring:
      • JMEST's direct marketing practices will undergo periodic reviews and monitoring to verify alignment with this policy and the pertinent regulations.
      • Any apprehensions or grievances concerning direct marketing practices should be promptly conveyed to the JMEST editorial office for thorough investigation.

      Note: By implementing this Direct Marketing Policy, JMEST aims to maintain ethical standards, respect the privacy of individuals, and provide valuable and relevant information to recipients while upholding the principles of COPE.

      { top }

      Ethical Oversight

      Suppose the research involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures, or equipment with any unusual risks. In that case, the author must clearly indicate these in the manuscript to adhere to ethical standards for research involving animals and human subjects. Authors may also need to provide legal ethical approval from the relevant association or legal entity.

      For research involving confidential data or business/marketing practices, authors must clearly explain how the data or information will be securely protected or justify the need for confidentiality.

      { top }

      Informed Concent Policy

      The Journal abides by the recommendations of JMEST and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) on informed object consent for case reports and other articles of a similar kind.  Unless the information is necessary for scientific research and the subjects or their legal guardians have given written informed consent for dissemination, written descriptions, photos, and pedigrees that reveal subject identify should be avoided. Identifying information should not be included unless absolutely necessary.  To achieve anonymity, the object data should never be changed or fabricated.  The manuscript must include a sentence addressing informed object consent.

      { top }

      Information for Author

      Who Can Submit?

      Anyone may submit an original article to be considered for publication in Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) provided he or she owns the copyright to the work being submitted or is authorized by the copyright owner or owners to submit the article.

      { top }

      Types of Articles

      The journal seeks to publish four types of contributions in the form of original articles, short communications, reviews, and mini reviews.

    • Original articles: Articles which represent in-depth research in various scientific disciplines.
    • Short communications: Should be complete manuscripts of significant importance. However, their length and/or depth do not justify a full-length paper. The number of words should be ≤ 3,000 without any figure and table.
    • Review articles: Contain unstructured abstract and include up-to-date references. Meta-analyses are considered as reviews.
    • Reviews: These are reviews of important and recent topics that are presented in a concise and well-focused manner. The minimum of words is limited to 6,000.

      • { top }

      Before Submission

      Please make sure that your manuscript meets the following criteria:

      • Your manuscript is an original work and has not been published or is currently under review with another journal or conference proceedings.
      • Your work complies with all research ethics standards. If the study involves human or animal subjects, the manuscript should include a separate section titled Ethics Approval.
      • The manuscript is written in acceptable English and is free of grammatical and spelling errors.
      • The manuscript is formatted according to the Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) template (Manuscript Template).
      • All figures are of acceptable quality and uploaded as separate files.
      • References are correctly formatted and numbered according to their order of appearance in the text. Please ensure the reference style is followed.
      • Only manuscripts of sufficient quality that align with the aims and scope of the journal will proceed to the review stage.
      • Manuscripts must comply with the journal's guidelines outlined below.

      Submissions that do not adhere to these guidelines may be rejected or returned to the author before entering the peer review process.

      { top }

      Online Submission

      Manuscripts should be submitted by one of the authors, as only one corresponding author is allowed per manuscript. Submission must be completed through the online system by following the on-screen instructions. Only Word files (.doc, .docx, .rtf) are accepted. Submissions by individuals who are not listed as one of the authors will not be considered. You can download the Article Template by following this link here.

      The submitting author is responsible for the manuscript throughout the submission and peer review process. If, for technical reasons, submission via the website is not possible, please contact jmest.journal@um.ac.id for assistance.

      { top }

      Initial Evaluation

      All submitted manuscripts will be checked by the Editorial Office to ensure they are properly prepared and comply with the ethical policies of the journal. All manuscripts are screened for potential plagiarism using Turnitin, with a maximum similarity threshold of 20%. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s ethical standards or formatting guidelines will be rejected before entering the peer review process.

      Manuscripts that are incomplete or not prepared according to the required style will be returned to the authors without scientific review. After these initial checks, the Editorial Office will consult the Editor-in-Chief to evaluate whether the manuscript fits the scope of the journal and whether it is scientifically sound. Manuscripts deemed to have insufficient priority for publication will be promptly rejected. These decisions are subject to verification by the Editor-in-Chief.

      Authors must be submitted their manuscripts in in English. Please ensure that your manuscript is written in clear and grammatically correct English (American usage is accepted). The Editor reserves the right to reject a manuscript based on insufficient language quality.

      { top }

      Submission Declaration and Verification

      Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract, a published lecture, or an academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out.

      { top }

      Manuscript Preparation Guidelines

      All papers published by Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science and Technology (JMEST) is on English. Authors are recommended to use the following professional English Translation Services. The length of submitted paper is at least 7 pages and no more than 15 pages (including references). Use of a reference tool such as Mendeley, End Note, or Zotero for reference management and formatting, and choose IEEE.

      Manuscript submitted to this journal should follow the heading below, except for the review article: Title; Authors Name; Authors Affiliation; Abstract; Keywords; Introduction; Methods; Results and Discussion; Conclusions; Author Contributions; Funding; Declaration of Conflicting Interests; Acknowledgments (optional); and References.

    • Title
      This is your opportunity to attract the reader’s attention. Remember that readers are the potential authors who will cite your article. Identify the main issue of the paper. Begin with the subject of the paper. The title should be accurate, unambiguous, specific, and complete. Do not contain infrequently-used abbreviations. Number of words in title is no more than 20 words.
    • Authors name and affiliation
      Write Author(s) names without title and professional positions such as Prof, Dr, Production Manager, etc. Do not abbreviate your last/family name. Always give your First and Last names. If you have one word name such as Laksana, write Laksana Laksana. Write clear affiliation of all Authors. Affiliation includes: name of department/unit, (faculty), name of university, address, country. Please indicate Corresponding Author (include email address) behind the name. Editors will evaluate if a paper is needing more than 16 pages.
    • Abstract
      The abstract should be clear, concise, and descriptive. This abstract should provide a brief introduction to the problem, objective of paper, followed by a statement regarding the methodology and a brief summary of results. The abstract should end with a comment on the significance of the results or a brief conclusion. An abstract should stand alone, means that no citation in the abstract. An abstract should be written in one paragraph, whereas the minimum of word is 200 up and no exceed to 250 words.
    • Keywords
      Maximum of 5 keywords, crucial to the appropriate indexing of the papers, are to be given.
    • Introduction
      A well-crafted introduction should guide the reader toward understanding the significance and novelty of the research without discussing the results or presenting an exhaustive literature review. Specifically, the introduction must include the following key elements: (1) Background of the study: This part introduces the broader context or real-world problem that motivates the research. It briefly outlines the current issue or phenomenon and emphasizes why it deserves scholarly attention. The background should be concise, ideally limited to one paragraph. (2) Rationale of the study: This part elaborates on the scientific and practical reasons for conducting the research. It may highlight unresolved problems, inadequacies in existing solutions, or the need for a new approach. The rationale should logically lead to the research focus and signal the value the study adds to the field. (3) Literature review: Provide a brief review of relevant previous studies. Rather than discussing each study individually (author by author), group the literature thematically, by method, topic, or findings. Highlight key trends, identify dominant approaches, and note their limitations. Avoid detailed discussion; focus only on key points that position your study in the existing body of knowledge. (4) Gap analysis: This part identifies the limitations, underexplored areas, or methodological weaknesses in previous research that the current study seeks to address. A typical sentence might be: “While numerous studies have examined X, few have addressed Y in the context of Z. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by…” The gap analysis justifies the study’s novelty and establishes its contribution to the field. (5) Purpose of the study: Clearly state the research objective(s) at the end of the introduction. Use direct and declarative language such as: “The objective of this study is to…” or “This study aims to investigate…” This statement should align with the research gap and guide the structure of the subsequent sections.

      • 6. Method
      This section describes how the study was conducted, providing sufficient detail to ensure replicability and to demonstrate methodological rigor. Each part should be written clearly and concisely, focusing on transparency and coherence. The method section must include the following key elements: (1) Study Design: Explain the overall design of the study (e.g., experimental, quasi-experimental, correlational, survey, case study). Include the type of approach (quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods) and justify the choice based on the research objectives. (2) Participants: Provide details about the individuals involved in the study, including the number of participants, their demographic characteristics (e.g., age, gender, educational background), and relevant inclusion or exclusion criteria. This helps clarify the scope and representativeness of the sample. (3) Target Population and Sampling Techniques: Describe the broader population from which the sample was drawn. Explain the sampling method (e.g., random sampling, stratified sampling, purposive sampling) and provide a rationale for its appropriateness in relation to the study’s goals. (4) Instruments (including sample items, scoring procedures, and psychometric details such as validity and reliability): List all instruments or tools used for data collection. Include sample items, scoring procedures, and any scales employed. Report psychometric properties such as validity (e.g., content, construct) and reliability (e.g., Cronbach’s alpha, inter-rater reliability), with references to prior studies or the current study's validation process. (5) Measurement Tools: Describe any measurement or assessment tools that are distinct from survey instruments, such as observation protocols, performance tests, rubrics, or standardized instruments. Specify what each tool measured and how data were recorded or scored. (6) Research Procedures and Timeline (if applicable): Detail the sequence of research activities, including data collection phases, interventions (if any), and other key procedural steps. If relevant, include a timeline or duration of each phase, especially in longitudinal or multi-stage studies. (7) Data Analysis Strategy (include statistical tests used and types of comparisons; standard methods need no justification, while advanced techniques should be supported with citations): Outline the statistical or qualitative analysis methods used to answer the research questions. For quantitative studies, specify the statistical tests conducted (e.g., t-test, ANOVA, regression analysis), the software used, and any assumptions tested. For advanced or uncommon methods, provide citations. For qualitative studies, describe the coding procedures, analytical frameworks, or software tools used.

      1. Results and Discussion
        This section presents the findings of the study and interprets them in relation to the research questions, relevant literature, and broader educational implications. It should demonstrate both analytical depth and scholarly engagement. The results and discussion section must include the following key elements: (1) Results: Present the key findings of the study in a clear, logical, and concise manner. Use tables, figures, or charts where appropriate to support the data presentation. Focus on answering the research questions or testing the hypotheses without interpreting the results, interpretation belongs in the Discussion section. Only include findings that are relevant to the study’s objectives. (2) Discussion: Interpret and explain the significance of the results in the context of previous research and theoretical frameworks. Highlight consistencies or discrepancies with prior studies and provide possible explanations for the observed outcomes. Discuss how the findings contribute to the field, address the research gap, or offer new insights. Avoid simply restating results; instead, engage in critical analysis and scholarly reflection. (3) Implications: Describe the practical, theoretical, or policy-related implications of the findings. Explain how the study contributes to counseling practices. Emphasize how the research aligns with SDG 10 and adds value to both counseling theory and practice beyond the academic setting. (4) Limitations: Acknowledge any limitations in the study design, methodology, or scope that may affect the generalizability or validity of the findings. Be honest yet constructive; discussing limitations strengthens the credibility of the study and signals areas for improvement. (5) Suggestions: Offer specific, actionable recommendations based on the findings. These may include directions for future research, improvements in educational practice, or recommendations for stakeholders (e.g., teachers, policymakers, curriculum developers). Suggestions should logically follow from the study’s results and limitations.

      Section Heading
      Authors are allowed to use headings up to Level 3 only. Please structure your manuscript clearly and consistently using hierarchical headings to enhance readability and logical flow. The use of more than three levels of subheadings is not permitted

      Table
      Tables are sequentially numbered with the table title and number above the table. Tables should be centered in the column OR on the page. Tables are referred in the text by the table number. eg: Table 1. Do not show vertical line in the table. There is only horizontal line should be shown within the table. A manuscript may contain a maximum of 10 tables. Only include data in tables that are: (1) Essential for understanding the results, (2) Summarized and comparable (e.g., statistical values, experimental findings, coded responses), (3) Better interpreted visually in a structured format rather than text. Avoid placing in tables: (1) Raw data or overly detailed figures that could overwhelm the reader, (2) Descriptive content better presented as narrative, (3) Redundant information already discussed fully in the text. Tables should be clear, concise, and self-explanatory without needing to refer excessively to the main text.

      Figure
      Figures are sequentially numbered commencing at 1 with the figure title and number below the figure as shown in Figure 1. Detailed recommendations for figures are as follows: (1) Ensure that figures are clear and legible with typed letterings, (2) Black & white or colored figures are allowed, (3) Hard copy illustrations should, preferably, be scanned and included in the electronic version of the submission in an appropriate format as follows: BMP; WMF; EPS; Microsoft Graph; Microsoft Draw.

      Bullets
      Bulleted and numbered lists should be avoided within the body text. Authors are encouraged to present information in the form of descriptive paragraphs to ensure better narrative flow and coherence throughout the manuscript.

      Equations
      Equations should be numbered serially within parentheses as shown in Equation (1). Equation should be prepared using MS Equation Editor (not in image format). The equation number is to be placed at the extreme right side.

      Units, Abbreviations and Symbols
      Metric units are preferred. Define abbreviations and symbols at the first time as they are introduced in the text. Definition of symbols should be presented in paragraph form, not as list bulleted.

      8. Conclusion
      The main conclusion(s) of the study should be presented in a short conclusion statement highlighting the goals of the study and its importance. State new hypotheses when warranted. Include recommendations when appropriate. Conclusion shall be written in a paragraph. Do not repeat the Abstract, or just list experimental results.

      1. Author Contributions
        For transparency, we encourage authors to submit an author statement file outlining their individual contributions to the paper using the relevant CRediT roles: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Funding acquisition; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Roles/Writing - original draft; Writing - review & editing. Authorship statements should be formatted with the names of authors first and CRediT role(s) following. Sample: Zhang San: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software. Priya Singh: Data curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Wang Wu: Visualization, Investigation. Jan Jansen: Supervision. Ajay Kumar: Software, Validation. Sun Qi: Writing- Reviewing and Editing.
      2. Funding
        You are requested to identify who provided financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the article and to briefly describe the role of the sponsor(s), if any, in study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication. If the funding source(s) had no such involvement, it is recommended to state this.
      3. Declaration of Conflicting Interests
        All authors must disclose any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could inappropriately influence (bias) their work. Examples of potential competing interests include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Authors must disclose any interests in two places: 1. A summary declaration of interest statement in the title page file (if double anonymized) or the manuscript file (if single anonymized). If there are no interests to declare then please state this: 'Declarations of interest: none'. 2. Detailed disclosures as part of a separate Declaration of Interest form, which forms part of the journal's official records. It is important for potential interests to be declared in both places and that the information matches.
      4. Data Availability
        Explain where and how the data supporting the findings of this study can be accessed, including any repository links, digital object identifiers (DOIs), or specific access instructions. Indicate whether the data are openly available, available upon reasonable request, or subject to restrictions (e.g., due to privacy, ethical, or legal considerations). If the data are not publicly available, please provide a clear justification. Additionally, specify the type of data shared (e.g., raw data, processed data, analysis scripts), and ensure that all shared datasets are properly anonymized if they involve human participants.

      13. Acknowledgment (optional)
      Recognize those who helped in the research, especially funding supporter of your research. Include individuals who have assisted you in your study: Advisors, Financial supporters, or may other supporter i.e. Proofreaders, Typists, and Suppliers who may have given materials.

      14. References
      All references cited in the manuscript must be listed in the reference section and formatted consistently according to the journal’s citation style (IEEE). The references should reflect the main scientific foundations of the research and consist only of sources the authors have read. Each manuscript must include a minimum of 30 references, with at least 85% drawn from peer-reviewed scientific journals published within the last ten years. While the use of textbooks should be minimized, citations from general websites must be avoided, unless they originate from credible scientific institutions or official data sources. Authors are required to provide DOIs or stable URLs for all references whenever available. To ensure scholarly integrity, excessive self-citation should be avoided, as well as excessive citations of publications from the same region, in order to maintain a balanced and globally relevant perspective. Although the use of reference management tools such as Zotero, Mendeley, or EndNote is encouraged, authors must manually verify all metadata. Including author names, article titles, journal names, volume, issue, page numbers, and DOIs to ensure completeness and accuracy. Unnecessary inflation of references should be avoided.

      { top }

      Revised Manuscript

      The revised version of the manuscript should be submitted online in the same manner as the initial submission. However, there is no need to submit the “First Page” or “Covering Letter” file when submitting a revised version.

      When submitting a revised manuscript, authors are required to include the referees’ comments along with a point-by-point response at the beginning of the document. Additionally, all changes made in the manuscript must be clearly highlighted so they are easily identifiable by the reviewers and editors.

      Note: The revised manuscript must be submitted within a maximum of 1 months from the editorial decision date. Failure to do so may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from the review process.

      { top }

      After Acceptance

      Upon acceptance, your article will be exported to production to undergo typesetting. Once the typesetting is complete, you will receive the proofs.

      { top }

      Proof

      One set of page proofs (as PDF files) will be sent by e-mail to the corresponding author. Please use this proof only for checking the typesetting, editing, completeness, and correctness of the text, tables, and figures. We will do our best to get your article published quickly and accurately. Therefore, we kindly expect the proofreading to be completed within 48 hours to ensure a smooth publication process. Note that the publisher may proceed with the publication of an article if no response is received.

      { top }

      Supplementary Materials

      Authors can publish online supplementary files along with their articles. Each supplementary file should include an article title, journal name, authors' names, affiliations, and email address of the corresponding author. supplementary files will be published as received from the authors without any conversion, editing, or reforming.

      { top }

      Article Publishing Charge

      This journal charges the following author charge.

      Article Submission: 0.00 (IDR)
      Authors are not required to pay an Article Submission Fee.

      Article Publication Charge: 2,000,000.00 (IDR) (approximately USD 150)
      If your paper is accepted for publication, you will be asked to pay an Article Publication Charge.

      Waiver Policy
      To promote inclusive academic participation and support researchers with limited access to funding, the journal offers a waiver policy for Article Publication Fee. Authors who are unable to pay the full fee due to financial constraints, particularly those from low-income countries or underfunded institutions may apply for a partial or full waiver.

      Waiver requests must be submitted at the time of manuscript submission and will not affect the editorial decision. All requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and authors will be notified of the outcome prior to the initiation of the publication process.

      Please note that not all waiver applications will be granted; approval is subject to the journal’s internal assessment and budget availability.

      Refund Policy
      The article publication fee is not refundable under any circumstance.

      { top }