Focus and Scope

Section Policies

Peer Review Process

Manuscripts submitted to this 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 this 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 prior to publication. This 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 this 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 this 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.

Open Access Policy

This journal adheres to best practices in scholarly publishing and complies with the following principles to support open access and responsible research dissemination:

1. Immediate Open Access
   All content is made freely available upon publication, in accordance with the principle that unrestricted access to research fosters a greater global exchange of knowledge.
2. Author Rights and Copyright Retention
   Authors retain full copyright over their work and grant the journal permission to publish without imposing any restrictions on reuse or redistribution.
3. Long-Term Digital Preservation
   The journal ensures long-term access to its content by depositing materials in recognized digital preservation archives.
4. Persistent Identifiers
   Each article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to guarantee permanent accessibility and reliable citation.
5. Machine-Readable Licensing
   All articles include embedded machine-readable Creative Commons license information to facilitate proper indexing, reuse, and compliance with open access mandates.
6. Reuse and Adaptation Rights under CC BY-SA
   The journal permits and encourages the reuse, remixing, and adaptation of content under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0) license. This allows derivative works for any purpose, including commercial use, provided proper attribution is given and derivative works are distributed under the same license.
7. Rich Metadata Availability
   Article-level metadata is made available in standard formats to facilitate inclusion in indexing services and aggregators.
8. Deposit Policy Transparency
   The journal has a clearly defined self-archiving and deposit policy registered in a recognized registry such as Sherpa/Romeo.
9. Self-Archiving Policy (Green OA)

Authors are permitted and encouraged to deposit all versions of their manuscript in institutional or subject repositories, including:

• Preprint (submitted version before peer review)
• Accepted manuscript (peer-reviewed, pre-publication version)
• Published version (Version of Record)

No embargo applies.
All articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0) license, allowing redistribution and adaptation with proper attribution and share-alike terms.
Authors should include a citation and link to the published version via the journal’s DOI.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries and permits those libraries to create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration. More...

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES) 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 field through digital technology. IAES Journals are peer-reviewed open-access international journals. By stating these publication ethics and publication malpractice statements, IAES pledges to ensure best practices in publishing integrity and to manage any malpractice that occurs. Publication malpractice is an unfortunate occurrence in the scholarly literature world. It occurs across all subject areas and jurisdictions, and 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, guidelines from the publication ethics and malpractice statement (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)

Ethical Guideline for Journal Publication

The publication of an article in this journal 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. 

Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES) 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 IAES and Editorial Board will assist in communications with other journals and/or publishers where this is useful and necessary.

Allegations of Research Misconduct

Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, citation manipulation, or plagiarism in producing, performing, or reviewing research and writing articles by authors or in reporting research results. When authors are found to have been involved with research misconduct or other serious irregularities involving articles that have been published in scientific journals, editors have a responsibility to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the scientific record. In cases of suspected misconduct, the editors and editorial board will use the best practices of COPE to assist them in resolving the complaint and addressing the misconduct fairly. This will include an investigation of the allegation by the editors. If the editors discover such misconduct in a submitted manuscript, they will reject it. If a published paper reveals such misconduct, we can publish a retraction and link it to the original article. The first step involves determining the validity of the allegation and assessing whether it is consistent with the definition of research misconduct. This initial step also involves determining whether the individuals alleging misconduct have relevant conflicts of interest. If scientific misconduct or the presence of other substantial research irregularities is a possibility, the allegations are shared with the corresponding author, who, on behalf of all of the coauthors, is requested to provide a detailed response. After the response is received and evaluated, additional review and involvement of experts (such as statistical reviewers) may be obtained. For cases in which it is unlikely that misconduct has occurred, clarifications, additional analyses, or both, published as letters to the editor and often including a correction notice and correction to the published article, are sufficient. Institutions are expected to conduct an appropriate and thorough investigation of allegations of scientific misconduct. Ultimately, authors, editors, publisher, and institutions have an important obligation to ensure the accuracy of the scientific record. By responding appropriately to concerns about scientific misconduct and taking necessary actions based on evaluation of these concerns, such as corrections, retractions with replacement, and retractions, IAES will continue to fulfill the responsibilities of ensuring the validity and integrity of the scientific record.

Publication decisions

The editors of the IAES journals are responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

Complaints and Appeals

This journal has a clear procedure for handling complaints against the journal, editorial staff, editorial board, or publisher. Respected personnel will clarify the complaints based on the specific case. The scope of complaints encompasses all aspects of journal business processes, such as editorial processes, citation manipulation, unfair editor/reviewer practices, and peer-review manipulation, among others. We will process the complaint cases in accordance with COPE guidelines. You should send the complaint cases by email to info@iaesjournal.com.

Fair play

An editor at any time evaluates manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

Confidentiality

The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Reviewers assist the editor in making editorial decisions. Generally, the editor asks reviewers to treat authors and their work with the respect they deserve and to adhere to proper reviewing etiquette. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of the scientific method. Editorial communications can also aid the author in enhancing the paper.

Promptness

Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.

Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.

Standards of Objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Disclosure and Conflict of Interest

Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards

Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Data Access and Retention

Authors are asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

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.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.

Fundamental errors in published works

When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.

Ethical Oversight

In order to follow the rules for ethical research involving people and animals, the author must make it clear in the manuscript if the research involves chemicals, people, animals, procedures, or equipment that have any special risks that come with using them. If required, authors must provide legal ethical clearance from an association or legal organization. If the research involves confidential data and business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter, whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.

Intelectual Property (Copyright Policy)

Here is the declaration of the journal's intellectual property or copyright policy: https://iaesprime.com/index.php/ehs/about/editorialPolicies#openAccessPolicy.

Peer-Review Process Policy

The peer-review process/policy is declared here: https://iaesprime.com/index.php/ehs/about/editorialPolicies#peerReviewProcess.

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.

Generative AI Policies

INTRODUCTION 

This policy is based on and refers to the guidelines outlined in the Generative AI Policies for Journals, as provided by:

• STM        : Recommendations for classifying AI use in academic manuscript preparation
• Elsevier   : The application of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies within the review process. 
• WAME    : Chatbots, generative AI, and scholarly manuscripts 

The Institute of Advanced Engineering and Science (IAES) understands the importance of artificial intelligence (AI) and its potential to help authors with their research and writing processes. IAES is excited about the new possibilities that generative AI tools bring, especially for helping to come up with ideas, speed up research, analyze results, improve writing, organize submissions, assist authors who write in a second language, and speed up the research and sharing process.  IAES is offering guidance to authors, editors, and reviewers on the use of such tools, which may evolve given the swift development of the AI field.  

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, including large language models (LLMs) and multimodal models, are continually developing and evolving, particularly in their applications for businesses and consumers. While generative AI possesses significant potential to enhance creativity for authors, it is important to acknowledge the associated risks that come with the current generation of these tools. Generative AI can produce a wide variety of content, encompassing text generation, image synthesis, audio, and synthetic data. Notable examples of such tools include ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, NovelAI, Jasper AI, DALL-E, Midjourney, and Runway. 

Some of the risks associated with the operation of generative AI tools today are:

1. Inaccuracy and bias: Generative AI tools are fundamentally statistical in nature rather than factual. Consequently, they can introduce inaccuracies, falsehoods (often referred to as hallucinations), or biases that may be difficult to detect, verify, and rectify.
2. Lack of attribution: Generative AI frequently fails to adhere to the established practices within the global scholarly community regarding the correct and precise attribution of ideas, quotes, or citations.
3. Confidentiality and intellectual property risks: Currently, generative AI tools are often employed on third-party platforms that may not provide adequate standards for confidentiality, data security, or copyright protection.
4. Unintended uses: Providers of generative AI may repurpose input or output data generated from user interactions (for instance, for AI training). This practice has the potential to infringe upon the rights of authors and publishers, among others.

AUTHORS 

Authors may use generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, GPT models) for specific tasks, such as enhancing the grammar, language, and readability of their manuscripts. However, authors remain responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of their submissions. When opting to use generative AI tools, it is essential that authors do so in a responsible manner and adhere to our journal's editorial policies concerning authorship and publication ethics. This responsibility encompasses reviewing the outputs produced by any AI tools and ensuring the accuracy of the content.

The IAES endorses the responsible use of generative AI tools, ensuring that high standards of data security, confidentiality, and copyright protection are maintained in instances such as the following:

• Idea generation and idea exploration 
• Language improvement 
• Interactive online search with LLM-enhanced search engines 
• Literature classification 
• Coding assistance 

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the content of their submissions meets the required standards of rigorous scientific and scholarly assessment, research, and validation and is created by the author. 

Generative AI tools should not be credited as authors, as they are unable to assume responsibility for the content submitted or to manage copyright and licensing agreements. Authorship necessitates accountability for the content, consent to publication through a publishing agreement, and the provision of contractual assurances regarding the integrity of the work, among other essential principles. These uniquely human responsibilities cannot be fulfilled by generative AI tools.  

Authors must clearly acknowledge any use of generative AI tools in their articles by including a statement that specifies the full name of the tool (along with its version number), how it was used, and the reason behind it. For article submissions, this statement should be placed in either the Methods or Acknowledgements section. This transparency allows editors to assess the employment and responsible use of generative AI tools. The IAES will maintain discretion over the publication of the work to ensure that integrity and guidelines are upheld.  

If an author intends to use an AI tool, they must ensure that it is suitable and robust for their intended purpose. Additionally, they should verify that the terms associated with such a tool offer adequate safeguards and protections, particularly concerning intellectual property rights, confidentiality, and security.

Authors should avoid submitting manuscripts that use generative AI tools in ways that compromise fundamental researcher and author responsibilities, for example: 

• text or code generation without rigorous revision 
• synthetic data generation to substitute missing data without robust methodology  
• generation of any types of content that are inaccurate, including abstracts or supplemental materials 

These types of cases may be subject to editorial investigation.  

IAES currently prohibits the use of generative AI in the creation and manipulation of images and figures, as well as original research data, for inclusion in our publications. The term “images and figures” encompasses pictures, charts, data tables, medical imagery, snippets of images, computer code, and formulas. “Manipulation” refers to augmenting, concealing, moving, removing, or introducing specific features within an image or figure.

Human oversight and transparency must consistently inform the use of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies throughout every stage of the research process. Research ethics guidelines are continuously being revised to reflect advancements in generative AI technologies. The IAES will continue to update our editorial guidelines as both the technology and ethical standards in research develop.

EDITORS AND PEER REVIEWERS 

IAES is committed to maintaining the highest standards of editorial integrity and transparency. Editors and peer reviewers using manuscripts in generative AI systems could risk breaking confidentiality, ownership rights, and privacy, including personal information. Consequently, editors and peer reviewers are prohibited from uploading files, images, or information from unpublished manuscripts into generative AI tools. Non-compliance with this policy may violate the intellectual property rights of the rightsholder. 

Editors  

Editors play a crucial role in maintaining the quality and integrity of research content. Consequently, it is imperative that editors maintain confidentiality regarding submission and peer review details.

The use of manuscripts within generative AI systems could pose significant risks related to confidentiality, as well as potential infringements on proprietary rights, data security, and other concerns. Therefore, editors are prohibited from uploading unpublished manuscripts, along with any associated files, images, or information, into generative AI tools.

Peer reviewers 

Peer reviewers, who are selected as subject-matter experts, should refrain from utilizing generative AI to evaluate or condense submitted articles, or any portion of them, when writing their reviews. Consequently, peer reviewers must not upload unpublished manuscripts or project proposals, nor any associated files, images, or information, into generative AI tools.

Generative AI may only be employed to assist in enhancing the language of the review; however, peer reviewers will always be accountable for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their assessments. 

CC BY-SA 4.0

Intellectual Journal of Energy Harvesting and Storage is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.