Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

AME (Aplikasi Mekanika dan Energi):Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Mesin merupakan jurnal ilmiah yang berisi hasil penelitian, kajian lapangan, pemikiran atau gagasan yang berkaitan dengan ilmu Teknik Mesin yang tidak terbatas pada Energi, Mekanika Stuktur, Material& Manufaktur, dan Mekatronika.

  1. Energi: energi terbarukan, energi angin, energi panas, energi air, fluida, dll
  2. Mekanika struktur: perilaku struktur, atau mesin terhadap beban yang bekerja
  3. Material dan manufaktur termasuk desain produk
  4. Mekatrnoika termasuk sistem kontrol

 

Section Policies

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

artikel

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

FRONT MATTER

FRONT MATTER

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

BACK MATTER

BACK MATTER

Checked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Kebijakan review oleh AME (Aplikasi Mekanika dan Energi):Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Mesin adalah sebagai berikut:

  • Setiap naskah/artikel jurnal yang disampaikan akan ditinjau oleh dua reviewer.
  • Proses peninjauan menggunakan double-blind review, yang mana reviewer tidak tahu identitas penulis, dan sebaliknya penulis tidak tahu identitas reviewer.
  • Dalam proses peninjauan, reviewer mempertimbangkan korespondensi judul, abstrak, metodologi, diskusi (hasil temuan) dan kesimpulan. Selain itu, reviewer juga mempertimbangkan kebaruan, dampak ilmiah, dan referensi yang digunakan dalam makalah.

Naskah/artikel yang diserahkan akan dinilai oleh editor dan reviewer. Kriteria penilaian untuk naskah yang berpotensial diterbitkan adalah:

  • Memiliki topik dan permasalahan yang jelas dan isu yang sesuai atau terbaru
  • Memiliki metode yang jelas
  • Menghasilkan temuan yang baru dan bermanfaat

Tanggapan dari reviewer (mitra bestari) akan menjadi pertimbangan bagi Editor untuk memutuskan:

  • Menerima naskah/artikel
  • Menerima namun diperlukan revisi
  • Perlu mengirim ulang untuk ditinjau
  • Perlu mengirim ulang ke tempat publikasi lain
  • Menolak naskah/artikel

Sebuah naskah/artikel ditolak untuk publikasi karena berbagai pertimbangan, termasuk:

  • Artikel tidak sesuai dengan ruang lingkup jurnal.
  • Artikel tidak mengikuti kaidah penulisan ilmiah atau petunjuk penulisan yang ada.
  • Kesalahan metodologis mendasar.
  • Penulis menolak melakukan perbaikan atas saran yang diberikan oleh mitra bestari tanpa dasar logis.
  • Ada indikasi plagiarisme lebih dari 20%.

 

Publication Frequency

AME (Aplikasi Mekanika dan Energi):Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Mesin merupakan jurnal ilmiah dengan e-ISSN 2581-0979 dan p-ISSN 2460-3988 yang direview dengan double blind review. Jurnal diterbitkan secara berkala 2 kali dalam setahun (6 bulanan) yaitu pada bulan Maret dan September.

 

Open Access Policy

Jurnal ini menyediakan akses terbuka langsung ke kontennya dengan prinsip bahwa membuat penelitian tersedia secara bebas untuk publik mendukung pertukaran pengetahuan global yang lebih besar.

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.

 

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.

 

Publication ethics

AME (Aplikasi Mekanika dan Energi): Jurnal Ilmiah Teknik Mesin is a scientific journal with e-ISSN 2581-0979 and p-ISSN 2460-3988 reviewed with a double-blind review. The journal is published periodically 2 times a year (6 months), namely in January and July by presenting 6 (six) articles in each issue. Managed by the Mechanical Engineering Study Program, Faculty of Engineering & Science, Ibn Khaldun University, Bogor. 

The statement of ethics of scientific publications is a statement of the code of ethics of all parties involved in the process of publication of this scientific journal, namely managers, editors, reviewer partners, and authors. The Code of Ethics for Scientific Publications essentially upholds three ethical values in publications, namely (i) Neutrality, which is free from conflicting interests in managing publications; (ii) Justice, namely giving authorship rights to those entitled as authors; and (iii) Honesty, i.e. free from duplication, fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism in publications.

After reading this Scientific Publication Ethics, please download the Ethics Statement and Copyright Agreement. Please sign and submit a Statement of Ethics as part of your initial article submission. The Copyright Agreement must be submitted before the article can be published. Statement of Ethics and Copyright Agreement can be sent by post, email or fax.

 

Ethical Oversight

If the research work involves chemicals, humans, animals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript in order to obey the ethical conduct of research using animals and human subjects. If required, the Authors must provide legal ethical clearance from the association or legal organization.

If the research involves confidential data and of business/marketing practices, authors should clearly justify this matter whether the data or information will be hidden securely or not.


Duties of Authors

  1. Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
  2. Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
  3. Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: The author should not, in general, submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing 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. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
  4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
  5. Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contributions must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgment section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
  6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly disclose in their manuscript any financial or another 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.
  7. Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
  8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.

 

Duties of Editor

  1. Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. 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. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
  2. Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer-reviewed. An editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
  3. Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
  4. Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
  5. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without the written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest

 

Duties of Reviewers

  1. Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  2. Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
  3. Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
  4. 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
  5. Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete a review of the manuscript within a stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor so the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer.