Archives of Foundry Engineering

Submission

To submit the article, please use the Editorial System provided here:

https://www.editorialsystem.com/afe

Papers submitted in any other way will not be accepted.

The Journal does not have submission charges.

The APC Article Processing Charge is 110 euros (500zł for Polish authors). In some cases, the APC is paid as a part of the scientific conference fee, for which the AFE journal is a supportive one. If not, it is payable after the acceptance of the final article by direct money transfer.

Bank account details:

Account holder: Stowarzyszenie Wychowankow Politechniki Slaskiej Kolo Odlewnikow
Account holder address: ul. Towarowa 7, 44-100 Gliwice, Poland
Account numbers: BIC BPKOPLPW IBAN PL17 1020 2401 0000 0202 0183 3748

Instructions for the preparation of an Archives of Foundry Engineering Paper

Publication Ethics Policy

The standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties involved in publishing in the Archives of Foundry Engineering journal: the author, the journal editor and editorial board, the peer reviewers and the publisher are listed below.

All the articles submitted for publication in Archives of Foundry Engineering are peer reviewed for authenticity, ethical issues and usefulness as per Review Procedure document.

Duties of Editors
1. Monitoring the ethical standards: Editorial Board monitors the ethical standards of the submitted manuscripts and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices.
2. Fair play: Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their scientific content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, citizenship, political ideology or any other issues that is a personal or human right.
3. Publication decisions: The Editor in Chief is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should or should not be published. The decision to accept or reject the article is based on its importance, originality, clarity, and its relevance to the scope of the journal and is made after the review process.
4. Confidentiality: The Editor in Chief and the members of the Editorial Board t ensure that all materials submitted to the journal remain confidential during the review process. They must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the parties involved in the publishing process i.e., authors, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher.
5. Disclosure and conflict of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in the submitted manuscript must not be used by the Editor and the Editorial Board in their own research without written consent of authors. Editors always precludes business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards.
6. Maintain the integrity of the academic record: The editors will guard the integrity of the published academic record by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable. Editorial Board always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

Retractions of the articles: the Editor in Chief will consider retracting a publication if:
- there are clear evidences that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of misconduct (e.g. data fabrication) or honest error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error)
- the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing, permission or justification (cases of redundant publication)
- it constitutes plagiarism or reports unethical research.
Notice of the retraction will be linked to the retracted article (by including the title and authors in the retraction heading), clearly identifies the retracted article and state who is retracting the article. Retraction notices should always mention the reason(s) for retraction to distinguish honest error from misconduct.
Retracted articles will not be removed from printed copies of the journal nor from electronic archives but their retracted status will be indicated as clearly as possible.

Duties of Authors
1. Reporting standards: Authors 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. The paper should contain sufficient details and references to permit others to replicate the work. The fabrication of results and making of fraudulent or inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and will cause rejection or retraction of a manuscript or a published article.
2. Originality and plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others they need to be cited or quoted. Plagiarism and fraudulent data is not acceptable.
3. Data access retention: Authors may be asked to provide the raw data for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to such data, and should be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication of their paper.
4. Multiple or concurrent publication: Authors should not in general publish a manuscript describing essentially the same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
5. Authorship of the manuscript: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the report study. All those who have made contributions should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included in 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.
6. Acknowledgement of sources: The proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. The authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the scope of the reported work.
7. Fundamental errors in published works: When the 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.

Duties of Reviewers
1. Contribution to editorial decisions: Peer reviews assist the editor in making editorial decisions and may also help authors to improve their manuscript.
2. Promptness: Any selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself/herself from the review process.
3. Confidentiality: All manuscript received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except those authorized by the editor.
4. Standards of objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
5. Acknowledgement of sources: Reviewers should identify the relevant published work that has not been cited by authors. Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper should be reported to the editor.
6. 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 evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relations with any of the authors, companies, or institutions involved in writing a paper.

Review Procedure

The Review Procedure for articles submitted to the Archives of Foundry Engineering agrees with the recommendations of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education published in a booklet: ‘Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce’ (MNiSW, Dobre praktyki w procedurach recenzyjnych w nauce, Warszawa 2011).

Papers submitted to the Editorial System are primarily screened by editors with respect to scope, formal issues and used template. Texts with obvious errors (formatting other than requested, missing references, evidently low scientific quality) will be rejected at this stage or will be sent for the adjustments.

Once verified each article is checked by the anti-plagiarism system Cross Check powered by iThenticate®. After the positive response, the article is moved into: Initially verified manuscripts. When the similarity level is too high, the article will be rejected. There is no strict rule (i.e., percentage of the similarity), and it is always subject to the Editor’s decision.
Initially verified manuscripts are then sent to at least four independent referees outside the author’s institution and at least two of them outside of Poland, who:

have no conflict of interests with the author,
are not in professional relationships with the author,
are competent in a given discipline and have at least a doctorate degree and respective
scientific achievements,
have a good reputation as reviewers.

The review form is available online at the Journal’s Editorial System and contains the following sections:

1. Article number and title in the Editorial System

2. The statement of the Reviewer (to choose the right options):

I declare that I have not guessed the identity of the Author. I declare that I have guessed the identity of the Author, but there is no conflict of interest

3. Detailed evaluation of the manuscript against other researches published to this point:

Do you think that the paper title corresponds with its contents?
Yes No
Do you think that the abstract expresses the paper contents well?
Yes No
Are the results or methods presented in the paper novel?
Yes No
Do the author(s) state clearly what they have achieved?
Yes No
Do you find the terminology employed proper?
Yes No
Do you find the bibliography representative and up-to-date?
Yes No
Do you find all necessary illustrations and tables?
Yes No
Do you think that the paper will be of interest to the journal readers?
Yes No

4. Reviewer conclusion

Accept without changes
Accept after changes suggested by reviewer.
Rate manuscript once again after major changes and another review
Reject

5. Information for Editors (not visible for authors).

6. Information for Authors

Reviewing is carried out in the double blind process (authors and reviewers do not know each other’s names).

The appointed reviewers obtain summary of the text and it is his/her decision upon accepting/rejecting the paper for review within a given time period 21 days.

The reviewers are obliged to keep opinions about the paper confidential and to not use knowledge about it before publication.

The reviewers send their review to the Archives of Foundry Engineering by Editorial System. The review is archived in the system.

Editors do not accept reviews, which do not conform to merit and formal rules of scientific reviewing like short positive or negative remarks not supported by a close scrutiny or definitely critical reviews with positive final conclusion. The reviewer’s remarks are sent to the author. He/she has to consider all remarks and revise the text accordingly.

The author of the text has the right to comment on the conclusions in case he/she does not agree with them. He/she can request the article withdrawal at any step of the article processing.

The Editor-in-Chief (supported by members of the Editorial Board) decides on publication based on remarks and conclusions presented by the reviewers, author’s comments and the final version of the manuscript.

The final Editor’s decision can be as follows:
Accept without changes
Reject

The rules for acceptance or rejection of the paper and the review form are available on the Web page of the AFE publisher.

Once a year Editorial Office publishes present list of cooperating reviewers.
Reviewing is free of charge.
All articles, including those rejected and withdrawn, are archived in the Editorial System.