Website

Users can access the journal's website at: https://joape.uma.ac.ir/

Name of Journal & Abbreviation

The journal title is the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering. The journal is abbreviated as J Oper. Autom. Power Eng. The acronym is JOAPE.

Peer-review Process

Peer Review Policy

In adherence to COPE's Code of Conduct and Best Practices, the journal is committed to implementing a double-blind peer review process.

Peer Review Process

The decision to publish a paper is made through a combination of editorial evaluation and peer review. Initially, all submissions undergo an internal assessment by an editorial committee, typically composed of two or more editorial board members, with significant input from the Editor-in-Chief. The primary objective at this stage is to determine whether the manuscript should be promptly rejected or forwarded for external review. Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope or fail to meet basic journal standards and guidelines may be rejected to avoid unnecessary delays for authors who may wish to submit their work elsewhere. In some cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author with suggestions for improvement to assist the editors in deciding whether to proceed with the review.

 

Authors can expect to receive a decision from this initial evaluation within 1-2 weeks of submission. Manuscripts that proceed to the review stage will be evaluated by members of an international panel of experts. All such papers undergo a double-blind peer review by two or more reviewers, overseen by the section editor and the Editor-in-Chief. While every effort is made to ensure the anonymity of the authors during the review process, it is the authors' responsibility to ensure that details of prior publications or other identifying information do not reveal their identity. If an author's identity is revealed in the manuscript, the review will be conducted as a single-blind process, where the authors do not know the reviewers' identities. The journal strives to complete the review process within 4-8 weeks of the decision to review. However, delays can occur, and authors are advised to wait at least 8 weeks after submission before contacting the journal. The Editor-in-Chief retains the final authority on the acceptance of all manuscripts.

Role of Reviewers

Reviewers are essential to upholding the integrity and effectiveness of our double-blind peer review process. They are required to maintain anonymity and must not disclose their identities at any stage. If a reviewer finds an article technically inadequate, feels unable to complete the review within the given timeframe, or identifies a conflict of interest, they should immediately decline the review request. All manuscripts are treated with strict confidentiality, and any external consultation must receive prior editorial approval.

Reviewers should not delegate the review of a manuscript to another person for personal gain; if unable to review, they should decline. As the backbone of the journal’s quality assurance, reviewers must ensure that published articles are of the highest quality and originality. If a reviewer becomes aware that a manuscript is under consideration by another publication, they should notify the editor.

There is no rigid formula for evaluating an article; each manuscript should be reviewed based on its unique merit, quality, and originality. Reviewers should consider several aspects during their evaluation, including the article’s format, adherence to author guidelines, clarity of objectives, coherence of transitions, and the structure of the introduction and conclusion. They should also assess the relevance and quality of references, check for spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors, and identify any issues with plagiarism.

Reviewers' comments are crucial in determining whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected. Our reviewers are encouraged to provide thorough and unbiased feedback, ensuring that all articles meet the journal’s high standards. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who will take into account the reviewers’ evaluations.

Instructions for Peer Reviewers

All submissions undergo a double-blind review, which we consider essential for maintaining the quality and impartiality of academic and scientific research. As a peer reviewer, you will provide feedback to the Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief, who, in conjunction with an editorial committee, will make the final publication decision. Regardless of whether we choose to publish an article, we value constructive feedback that can help the author improve their work.

Please remember that unpublished manuscripts are confidential documents. Do not discuss the article you are reviewing, even with colleagues. When invited to peer review for the journal, please complete the reviewing form provided. Respond to all peer review requests promptly. If you feel the manuscript is outside your expertise or cannot commit the necessary time, notify the editorial office immediately so that an alternative reviewer can be assigned. You may also recommend a qualified colleague at this stage. Timely responses are crucial, as delays can hinder the author from receiving a prompt decision on their manuscript.

Before reviewing, familiarize yourself with the journal's Author Instructions and its Aims and Scope. Evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the journal’s objectives. The journal's goals and domain can be found under the "Journal Information" section. Every review should be constructive and helpful. We encourage reviewers to be honest yet considerate in their feedback.

In your role as a peer reviewer, provide an objective, critical evaluation of the manuscript. Your report should include detailed responses to the journal’s questions on the reviewing form. If the manuscript requires revisions before it can be accepted, offer clear suggestions for improvement. Conversely, if you believe the manuscript is fundamentally flawed and unlikely to be improved to a publishable standard, recommend its rejection.

Additional guidelines:

• • Write clearly, using language that is accessible to non-native English speakers. Avoid overly complex terminology.
  • Number your comments and refer to specific page and line numbers in the manuscript.
  • If you are providing focused feedback on particular sections, clearly indicate which parts of the work your comments pertain to.
  • Treat the author's work with the same respect you would expect for your own.
  • Only the editors will see the reviewer score sheet, but the authors will receive your comments.
  • Indicate whether the manuscript requires corrections in grammar, punctuation, or spelling.

Confidentiality and Privacy

All manuscripts must be handled with strict confidentiality to protect the authors' privacy. By submitting their work for review, authors place their trust in editors, as the outcomes of these evaluations can significantly impact their professional reputation and career trajectory. Any breach of confidentiality during the review process may infringe on the authors' rights. Similarly, the confidentiality rights of reviewers must also be respected. While confidentiality may need to be broken in cases of suspected dishonesty or fraud, it must otherwise be upheld.

Editors are strictly prohibited from disclosing any information related to submitted papers, including details about their receipt, content, review status, feedback from reviewers, and final decisions, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. This prohibition extends to any requests to use the materials in legal proceedings.

Editors must ensure that reviewers understand that submitted manuscripts are confidential communications and the private property of the authors. Reviewers and editorial staff are expected to respect the authors' rights by refraining from publicly discussing the manuscripts or appropriating the authors' ideas before publication. Without the editor's explicit permission, reviewers should not retain copies of the manuscripts for personal use, nor should they share them with others. After completing their reviews, reviewers should either return or securely dispose of any copies of the manuscripts. Editors should not retain rejected manuscripts in their files. Reviewer comments should not be published or shared publicly without the explicit consent of the reviewer, author, and editor.

Guidelines and Flowcharts of COPE
The Journal is dedicated to upholding and applying the guidelines and flowcharts established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout its review and publication processes. We are committed to ensuring ethical standards are met in all aspects of our editorial and publication practices. For more detailed information, please visit COPE's official website.

Mismatch of Interests in Reviewing Procedure
Although we employ a double-blind peer review process, the research community can often be closely knit. Reviewers might recognize the author’s work due to previous familiarity with their writing. While it is possible to provide an unbiased assessment of a manuscript written by a colleague or competitor, any significant conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editor. If such conflicts could lead to a strong positive or negative bias, it is advisable to decline the review request.

Focus on evaluating the article itself rather than making judgments about the author. This approach not only helps improve the work but is also likely to be appreciated by the author. Editors value transparency regarding potential conflicts of interest, even if it means seeking out a different reviewer.

 

Ownership and Management

The Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering is owned, managed, and published by the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, Iran.

Governing Body

The governing body of the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering consists of a distinguished group of professionals and academics. Their affiliations and contact information can be accessed here.

Editorial Board

The Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering is supported by an esteemed Editorial Board whose members contribute their expertise to ensure the quality and relevance of the journal's content. Details about the Editorial Board members, including their affiliations and contact information, can be found on the journal's page under the menu titled "Editorial Board."

Copyright and Licensing

In support of fostering a broader exchange of knowledge, the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering provides immediate open access to all its content. Each journal article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited.

Authors retain copyright for their articles but grant the publisher exclusive rights. Authors are entitled to:

• • Share their article in accordance with their "Personal Use Rights," which includes including the end user license and a DOI link to the version currently archived in the journal.
  • Retain intellectual property rights, including research data.
  • Receive appropriate credit and attribution for their published work.

Personal Use Rights include:

• • Use in educational settings (such as classroom instruction, including distribution of copies, whether paper or electronic).
  • Sharing with research colleagues for personal use (e.g., via email).
  • Inclusion in theses or dissertations.
  • Incorporation into collections of the author's works.
  • Transformation into a book-length publication.
  • Creation of derivative works (excluding commercial use).
  • Reuse of parts or excerpts in different contexts.

Authors and Authors Responsibilities

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring all administrative requirements of the journal are met, including obtaining ethics committee approval, providing authorship details, gathering conflict of interest statements, and securing clinical trial registration documentation. They serve as the primary point of communication with the journal throughout the manuscript submission, peer review, and publication processes.

During these stages, the corresponding author must promptly address editorial queries and assist the journal with any post-publication requests. After an article has been accepted, the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering does not permit the addition of new authors or alterations to the first or corresponding authors. If an author wishes to be removed from the byline, a letter must be submitted, signed by the author requesting removal and all other co-authors. Any changes to the order of names in the byline require a letter signed by all authors, indicating their consent to the modification.

The corresponding author’s responsibilities include:

• • Ensuring compliance with all journal administrative requirements.
  • Responding promptly to editorial questions during submission and review.
  • Assisting with any post-publication requests.

Changes to authorship after acceptance are generally not allowed, and any necessary modifications must be formally documented with appropriate signatures.

Duplicate Publication and Originality

Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering must be original and not published elsewhere. This requirement extends to any manuscripts that are under review by other publications simultaneously. Authors must address any copyright issues before including figures or tables from other sources in their submissions. Duplicate submissions or publications are not permitted, and adherence to these guidelines is essential to ensure the integrity of the review process and the originality of published work.

Author Fees

The University of Mohaghegh Ardabili supports all the publishing costs for the JOAPE.

Publication Ethics

The Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering is committed to adhering to all relevant publisher rules and conduct guidelines. As a non-profit, open access, peer-reviewed journal published by the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili, it upholds rigorous publication ethics in accordance with COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices.

COPE’s Guidelines & Flowcharts

The Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering is committed to following and applying the guidelines and flowcharts set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in its reviewing and publishing processes.

COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practices

1. Editors

Chief Editors are accountable for all content published in the journal. This responsibility includes:

1.1 Striving to meet the needs of both readers and authors.

1.2 Continuously seeking to improve the journal.

1.3 Implementing processes to ensure the quality of the published material.

1.4 Championing freedom of expression.

1.5 Maintaining the integrity of the academic record.

1.6 Preventing business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.

1.7 Being prepared to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions, and apologies when necessary.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Actively seeking feedback from authors, readers, reviewers, and editorial board members on improving journal processes.
  • Staying informed about research into peer review and publishing, and reassessing journal processes based on new findings.
  • Supporting initiatives aimed at reducing research and publication misconduct.
  • Promoting educational initiatives on publication ethics for researchers.
  • Evaluating the impact of journal policies on author and reviewer behavior and revising policies to encourage responsible behavior and prevent misconduct.
  • Ensuring that any press releases issued by the journal accurately reflect the content of the reported article and provide appropriate context.

2. Readers

Readers should be informed about any funding sources for research or scholarly work and whether funders had any role in the research and its publication. If so, their role should be clearly stated.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Ensure that all published reports and reviews of research are evaluated by suitably qualified reviewers, including statistical review.
  • Clearly identify non-peer-reviewed sections of the journal.
  • Adopt processes that encourage accuracy, completeness, and clarity in research reporting, including technical editing and adherence to appropriate guidelines and checklists.
  • Develop a transparency policy to encourage maximum disclosure about the origin of non-research articles.
  • Implement authorship or contributorship systems that promote good practices, such as accurately reflecting who did the work and discouraging misconduct (e.g., ghost and guest authors).
  • Inform readers about the steps taken to ensure that submissions from the journal’s staff or editorial board members receive an objective and unbiased evaluation.

3. Relations with Authors

3.1 Decisions to accept or reject a paper should be based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, validity, and relevance to the journal's scope.

3.2 Editors should not reverse acceptance decisions unless serious issues with the submission are identified.

3.3 New editors should not overturn decisions made by previous editors unless serious issues are identified.

3.4 A description of the peer review process should be published, and editors should be prepared to justify any significant deviations from this process.

3.5 The journal should have a mechanism for authors to appeal editorial decisions.

3.6 Editors should provide clear guidance to authors on expectations, and this guidance should be regularly updated and referenced to this code.

3.7 Editors should offer guidance on criteria for authorship and/or contribution, following standards within the relevant field.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Regularly review and update author instructions, providing links to relevant guidelines.
  • Publish competing interests for all contributors and issue corrections if new competing interests are revealed post-publication.
  • Select appropriate reviewers who are qualified to judge the work and free from disqualifying competing interests.
  • Respect well-reasoned requests from authors to exclude certain individuals from reviewing their submission.
  • Publish details of how suspected misconduct cases are handled.
  • Include submission and acceptance dates for articles.

4. Relations with Reviewers

4.1 Editors should provide clear guidance to reviewers on their responsibilities, including the need for confidentiality. This guidance should be regularly updated and refer to this code.

4.2 Reviewers should be required to disclose any potential competing interests before agreeing to review a submission.

4.3 Editors should have systems to protect the identities of peer reviewers unless an open review system is used and declared to authors and reviewers.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Encourage reviewers to comment on ethical issues and potential research and publication misconduct (e.g., unethical research design, insufficient detail on consent, inappropriate data manipulation).
  • Encourage reviewers to assess the originality of submissions and be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
  • Consider providing reviewers with tools to detect related publications (e.g., links to cited references and bibliographic searches).
  • Send reviewers’ comments to authors in full, unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks.
  • Acknowledge the contribution of reviewers to the journal.
  • Encourage academic institutions to recognize peer review as part of the scholarly process.
  • Monitor reviewer performance to ensure high standards and maintain a database of suitable reviewers, updating it based on performance.
  • Cease using reviewers who consistently produce poor quality, discourteous, or late reviews.
  • Ensure the reviewer database reflects the journal's community and add new reviewers as needed, using a wide range of sources (e.g., author suggestions, bibliographic databases).
  • Follow COPE guidelines in cases of suspected reviewer misconduct.

5. Relations with Editorial Board Members

5.1 Editors should provide new editorial board members with guidelines on their responsibilities and keep existing members informed about new policies and developments.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Implement policies to handle submissions from editorial board members to ensure unbiased review.
  • Identify suitably qualified editorial board members who can actively contribute to the development and management of the journal.
  • Regularly review the composition of the editorial board.
  • Provide clear guidance on expected functions and duties for editorial board members, which may include:
    • Acting as ambassadors for the journal.
    • Supporting and promoting the journal.
    • Seeking out high-quality authors and work (e.g., from meeting abstracts) and encouraging submissions.
    • Reviewing submissions to the journal.
    • Accepting commissions to write editorials, reviews, and commentaries on papers in their specialty.
    • Attending and contributing to editorial board meetings.
    • Consulting with editorial board members periodically (e.g., annually) to gauge their opinions on the journal’s operations, inform them of policy changes, and identify future challenges.

6. Relations with Publisher

6.1 The relationship between editors and the publisher is based on the principle of editorial independence.

6.2 Editors should make publication decisions based solely on the quality and suitability of the articles for the journal, without interference from the publisher.

6.3 Editors should have written contracts outlining their relationship with the publisher.

6.4 The terms of these contracts should align with the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Communicate regularly with the publisher to ensure a clear understanding of expectations and responsibilities.

7. Editorial and Peer Review Processes

7.1 Editors should ensure that peer review at their journal is fair, unbiased, and timely.

7.2 Editors should have systems in place to maintain the confidentiality of material submitted for review.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Ensure that all involved in the editorial process (including themselves) receive adequate training and stay updated on the latest guidelines and evidence about peer review and journal management.
  • Stay informed about research into peer review and technological advances.
  • Adopt peer review methods best suited for the journal and the research community it serves.
  • Periodically review and improve peer review practices as necessary.
  • Refer troubling cases to COPE, especially when issues arise that are not covered by COPE flowcharts or involve new types of publication misconduct.
  • Consider appointing an ombudsperson to handle complaints that cannot be resolved internally.

8. Quality Assurance

Editors should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognizing that different journals and sections may have varying aims and standards.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Implement systems to detect falsified data (e.g., manipulated images or plagiarized text), either routinely or when suspicions are raised.
  • Base decisions about journal house style on evidence that enhances the quality of reporting (e.g., structured abstracts, adherence to guidelines) rather than on aesthetic preferences or personal tastes.

9. Protecting Individual Data

Editors are required to follow confidentiality laws relevant to their jurisdiction. Regardless of local regulations, they must always safeguard the confidentiality of individual information acquired during research or professional interactions. Written informed consent is generally required for publishing any information that could identify individuals, such as in case reports or images. However, if the public interest outweighs potential risks, and obtaining consent is not feasible, publication may proceed if it is unlikely to cause harm or provoke objections from the individuals involved.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Clearly publish and communicate the journal's policy regarding the handling of individual data, including personal details and images.
  • Emphasize that consent to participate in research or receive treatment does not equate to consent for publication of personal information.

10. Encouraging Ethical Research (e.g., Research Involving Humans or Animals)

10.1 Editors should ensure that the research they publish complies with international ethical standards, such as the Declaration of Helsinki for clinical studies, and the AERA and BERA guidelines for educational research.

10.2 It is crucial for editors to confirm that research has received approval from appropriate ethical bodies (e.g., research ethics committees or institutional review boards). Nevertheless, such approval does not guarantee that the research is conducted ethically.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Request proof of ethical approval and clarify ethical issues if needed, such as how consent was obtained or how animal welfare was addressed.
  • Ensure that reports on clinical trials cite adherence to the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice standards.
  • Consider appointing an ethics advisor or panel to provide guidance on ethical issues and review journal policies periodically.

11. Handling Potential Misconduct

11.1 Editors have a responsibility to address any suspected misconduct or allegations of misconduct, whether for published or unpublished work.

11.2 Editors should not simply reject manuscripts with potential misconduct concerns. They are ethically bound to investigate these cases.

11.3 Follow COPE flowcharts when dealing with suspected misconduct.

11.4 Initially, editors should seek responses from the individuals suspected of misconduct. If their responses are insufficient, editors should involve the relevant institutions or regulatory bodies for further investigation.

11.5 Editors should make every effort to ensure that a thorough investigation is conducted and continue to seek resolution if initial efforts do not suffice.

12. Maintaining the Integrity of the Academic Record

12.1 Any errors or misleading information should be corrected promptly and given appropriate prominence.

12.2 Adhere to COPE guidelines for retractions.

Best Practices for Editors:

• • Implement measures to prevent covert redundant publication, such as requiring the registration of clinical trials.
  • Ensure that published materials are securely archived, using permanent online repositories like PubMed Central.
  • Develop systems to make original research articles freely available to authors.

13. Intellectual Property

Editors should be vigilant about intellectual property matters and collaborate with the University of Mohaghegh Ardabili to address any potential intellectual property infringements.

Best practices for editors include:

• • Implementing systems to detect potential plagiarism, such as using detection software or searching for similar titles in submitted manuscripts.
  • Supporting authors who encounter issues with copyright infringement or plagiarism.
  • Working with the publisher to uphold authors' rights and address offenders, which may involve requesting retractions or removal of content from other platforms, regardless of the journal's copyright status.

14. Encouraging Debate

14.1 Editors should actively promote and consider well-reasoned critiques of articles published in the Journal of Operation and Automation in Power Engineering (JOAPE).

 14.2 Authors of articles that are critiqued should have the opportunity to respond to such criticisms.

14.3 The JOAPE should not exclude studies that report negative results.

Best practices for editors include:

• • Being open to research that challenges previous findings published in the JOAPE.

15. Complaints

15.1 Editors should address complaints swiftly and provide a clear process for dissatisfied individuals to escalate their issues. This process should be transparent and include information on how to refer unresolved matters to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 15.2 Editors should adhere to the procedures outlined in the COPE flowchart for managing complaints.

16. Commercial Considerations

16.1 The JOAPE should have policies to ensure that commercial interests do not influence editorial decisions. For instance, advertising departments should operate independently of editorial functions.

16.2 Editors should disclose their policies regarding advertising and the processes for publishing sponsored supplements.

16.3 Reprints should mirror the original publication, with any necessary corrections clearly identified.

Best practices for editors include:

• • Providing a general overview of the JOAPE’s revenue sources, such as advertising, reprint sales, sponsored supplements, and page charges.
  • Ensuring that peer review for sponsored supplements matches that of the main JOAPE and that decisions are based solely on academic merit, not commercial interests.

17. Conflicts of Interest

17.1 Editors should follow COPE guidelines for managing conflicts of interest.

17.2 The JOAPE should have a clear process for handling submissions from editors, employees, or editorial board members to ensure an unbiased review.

18. Plagiarism

Authors are encouraged to use reputable plagiarism detection software before submitting their manuscripts to ensure originality. All submitted manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism using tools like iThenticate. If any form of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, is detected at any stage, the manuscript will be rejected, and all authors, including the corresponding author, will be notified. COPE's guidelines and flowcharts will be applied in cases of suspected or confirmed plagiarism.

Publishing Schedule

The JOAPE has been published quarterly since 2013.

Archiving Policy

The JOAPE is archived electronically in the following local and international repositories:

• • Islamic World Science Citation Center (ISC)
  • Scientific Information Database (SID)
  • Magiran

Revenue Sources

The University of Mohaghegh Ardabili covers all the publishing costs for the JOAPE.

Advertising

The JOAPE does not accept advertisements.

Direct Marketing

The JOAPE does not engage in direct marketing activities.

Publisher Principles: Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

The JOAPE is committed to adhering to the codes and principles of conduct set forth by the publisher, which are based on the "Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing," published and updated on September 15, 2022, by COPE, the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association (OASPA).