Welcome to the user guidelines page of our scientific journal website. At our journal, we are committed to providing a user-friendly and efficient platform for authors and readers alike. To ensure that our website is used effectively and appropriately, we have developed a set of user guidelines that outline the best practices for preparing manuscripts and using our website's features. We encourage all authors to carefully review these guidelines before submitting their manuscripts and to follow them throughout the publication process. By doing so, you can help us maintain the quality and integrity of our publication and website, and ensure a positive experience for all users.

 

1. For authors

    1.1. Before submission

    1.2. Manuscript formatting guidelines

    1.3. Policies and Processes

    1.4. Website usage

2. For reviewers

    2.1. Policies and Processes

    2.2. Review form

    2.3. Website usage

 

1. For authors

1.1. Before submission

Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science (referred to as the Journal) would like to sincerely thank all authors for choosing and submitting their manuscripts to the Journal. To ensure the interests of the authors, please kindly check all the following points before your submission:

  1. The manuscript submitted to Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere (in the form of abstract only or full text; in printed or online version). The manuscript will also be not allowed to submit anywhere else until receiving a final decision from the Journal (rejected for publication);
  2. All manuscripts must comply with the Journal’s Aims & Scope. The manuscripts are complete scientific studies in the fields of Engineering and Technology;
  3. All the manuscripts must comply with the Publishing Regulations of the Journal. The Journal encourages the authors to closely refer to the Article Template provided by the Journal. Authors should number the lines to facilitate the process of reviewing and editing. In the case that the manuscripts contain large volumes of additional data (supplementary) and other material (lengthy appendixes), the articles will not be selected for printed publication (articles might be published online only);
  4. Cover letter: is an obligatory requirement, attached with the manuscript, including all the following information:
    • The discernible reason why the work deserves the visibility of publication (an advance in understanding to influence thinking in the field);
    • Author information (group of authors);
    • The potential conflicts of interest;
    • Proposal of two appropriate reviewers.
  5. All manuscripts must adhere to the Journal's Policies;
    • If the manuscript is the collective work of several authors, all authors will decide the number/order of the author list. The primary author is the one whose name appears first on the list. The remaining authors are regarded as co-authors. The corresponding author will manage all communication between the Journal and all co-authors and directly contact the Journal to discuss any issues relating to the submission, modification, editing, and publication. He/she could be the primary author or any other one among the co-authors. All authors are also responsible for identifying this representative who accepts direct responsibility for the manuscript. All authors have to agree to be listed and approve the manuscript submission to the Journal. After entering the editing process, any amendment, deletion, or re-arrangement to the author list will not be accepted (unless the authors submit a formal letter with a rational reason to the Journal);
    • Authors have the copyright under Vietnam Intellectual Property Law and international law (VBHN - Intellectual Property Law (2019)) 
    • Submission Policy: All manuscripts are submitted to the online system of the Journal.
    • Ethical Policy: all manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism and research duplication. The author is responsible for the content of the article and the use of documents, data, figures, etc. Potential conflicts of interest need to be disclosed, including ethical standards and intellectual property conflicts, the author’s roles & interests, and journal policies;
    • Review Policy: The Journal implements a double-blind peer-review process. Authors are strictly required to keep confidential all details of the editorial and peer review process on submitted manuscripts. If required, the authors must publicly support the provision of research data to review and/or improve the manuscript’s quality;
    • Editorial and Publication Policy: the authors need to willingly coordinate with the editors to improve the quality of the manuscript based on the requirements of the reviewers/editors. In replying to the reviewers’ comments, the authors are advised to use language that would not cause offense when their manuscripts is shown as having some weaknesses. After acceptance, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content in the manuscript, including authors’ information. Once published, the corresponding author is a direct contact for all matters related to the published article.
  6. No submission and publication fees are required.
  7. Open access to all published articles (English - Vietnamese).
  8. Readers and authors can order reprints by contacting the Journal Office.

1.2. Manuscript formatting guidelines

Manuscipts to be submitted to Advances in Computational Structures must agree with the general format of the journal. Below are main points to be taken note. Authors are encouraged to refer to the formatting instructions compatible with the journal. The detailed instructions file can be downloaded here.

  1. All manuscripts must comply with the Journal's aims & scope;
  2. The author(s) has carefully read and adhered to the policies (submission, review, editting);
  3. All the manuscripts must comply with the Manuscript Formatting Guide of the Journal;
    • The length, font size;
    • The title, summary, keywords (in English and Vietnamese);
    • The tables, figures, data;
    • The citations;
    • The layout & spelling errors.
  4. The author(s) must fully provide personal information of all authors (including full names, academic degrees, affiliations, positions, emails, phone, address) and other commitments if required.
  5. The submission must include a Cover Letter

1.3. Policies and Processes

All processes (submission, review, editing, publication) are all done via the Journal’s online system. Each process will be implemented within a certain amount of time committed by the Journal.

1.3.1. Submision and Editorial Screening process

Publishing with Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, all submitted manuscripts must be completed scientific research (including all the necessary scientific paper components) and submitted in the correct specification via the Journal online system. The manuscripts must be in compliance with the presented Aims & Scope, Policies and the Manuscript Formating Guide. 

The manuscript submitted to Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science must be original and not published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

All manuscripts must undergo editorial screening. Only the manuscripts that seem most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent for formal review.

The process of submission includes the following steps:

Step 1:
All manuscripts are handled electronically via the Journal's online submission system.

Step 2:
The Journal will send out the confirmation for submission by email (email template).

Step 3:
The editors will do the editorial screening for all manuscripts received on OJS system within a maximum of 03 days. The review process includes the following points:

  • The conformity to the Journal’s Aims and Scope;
  • The compliance with the submsision, review, and editorial policies;
  • The conformity with presented the manuscript formatting guide (the format, length, font size; title, summary, keywords (in English and Vietnamese); tables, figures, data; citations; layout & spelling errors);
  • The authors’ information (full names, academic degrees, affiliations, positions, email, addresses, and phone numbers) and other Journal’s commitments.

Editorial screening results:

  • Scenario 1: If the manuscript satisfies all the editorial screening requirements mentioned above, the Journal will inform the corresponding author about the result. This point of time is counted as the received date.
  • Scenario 2: The manuscripts judged by the editors to be of insufficient general interest or inappropriate content are rejected promptly without external review.
    • Adjusting and re-submitting: In case of an inconsistent Manuscript Formatting Guide,  or lack of essential information, a request to supplement, adjust, and re-submit will be sent to the author. This process will be repeated until the manuscript meets our editorial criteria. At this point of time, the author will receive a confirmation from the Journal, and also counted as an official received date.
    • Rejecting: If the manuscript does not conform with the Journal’s Aims and Scope; or the revised paper still does not meet the editorial criteria, or the author refuses to make any adjustments as required.

1.3.2. Review process

After the manuscript has undergone through the editorial screening, the manuscript will enter the peer-review process, an essential part of the publication process.

Step 1:
Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers. The Editor-in-Chief will authorize the editors/section editors to send the invitation to identified reviewers who are selected and included in the reviewer list approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The maximum response time for reviewer is 03 days.

Step 2:
Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review. The Journal has adopted a double-blind review policy. The peer review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released. All information will be exchanged through the Journal, if any.

The maximum duration of the review process is 20 days (first round) and 07 days (second round) of receiving a manuscript and accepting the review invitation (in some exceptional cases, it could be either longer or shorter by prior arrangement).

Step 3:
The primary purpose of the review is to provide the needed/ essential information to reach a decision. After having the result of first round, the Editor-in-Chief then make a decision, in the light of the reviewers/editors’ advice, among four options:

(1) Accept submision;

(2) Revisions required;

(3)Resubmit for review (second round);

(4) Decline submision.

All manuscripts will go through at least one round of review, sometimes two, based on the recommendation from the first reviewer, decided by the Editor-in-Chief.

Authors can track the manuscripts’ status, shown on the status column of the online system. At the same time, the editor will email the review result - the editor’s decision (one out of four options) attached the revision request for the manuscript’s content/format (if it is options (2), (3), and the apparent reasons if it is the option (4)).

Step 4:
In the light of reviewers/editors’ recommendations, a letter will be sent to the author implementing one of the following options:

(1) Accept submission: The manuscript is accepted for publication without any further changes - no actions required from the Journal;      

(2) Revisions required: The manuscript is accepted for publication once the authors have done some primary revisions in response to the reviewers/editors’ comments (no further review needed). The revisions are expected to receive within 10 days. The revised version should be accompanied by a point-by-point response to all the specific concerns given by the reviewers/editors. The Editor-in-Chief/editors will check to ensure all the suggestions have been implemented;

(3)Resubmit for review (second round): Within 10 days, the revised papers are sent back to the Journal for a second review. A serious attempt should be made to satisfactorily address all the technical criticisms (not just some of them), and must accompany the re-submitted version with a point-by-point response. All the review processes (first and second round) will be repeatedly implemented. If the manuscripts are evaluated by two or three reviewers, the process will happen as same as the first review;

(4) Decline submission: The manuscript is rejected with no offer to reconsider a resubmitted version, but the negative review should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript to understand the basis of the final decision.

All manuscripts could be reviewed by typically one reviewer, sometimes two or three if particular advice is needed (could be parallelly or serially), determined by the Editor-in-Chief/section editors. All manuscripts go through at least one round of review, sometimes two, based on the first reviewer/editor/section editor/Editor-in-Chief decision.

All decisions regarding review results are displayed in the status bar and notified by email to the authors.

After completing the review stage, the status bar will show "In editing": The manuscript continues to enter the editing stage.

1.3.3. Editorial process

After acceptance for publication, the Journal will advise the authors about the format of their manuscripts to ensure maximum clarity/precision and enhance the value of manuscripts in various ways: Copyediting and Proofreading.

To reduce delays and minimize potential errors, the Journal encourage the authors to follow Manuscript Formatting Guidelines and Article Template to ensure that the final versions are complete and in the correct format.

Step 1: Copyediting
The Journal will send the authors the edited text for approval before it is typeset. This action enables most queries to be resolved before the proof stage. Additionally, at this stage, the Journal will check the similarity (plagiarism) of the manuscript and send the requests to the authors for revisions based onTurnitin results, if needed, to ensure that the papers meet the standards of similarity. The authors should cooperate with editors to make all the revisions according to reviewers/editors’ recommendations. On behalf of all co-authors, the corresponding author is responsible for submitting the revised version as well as discussing with the Journal about all the modifications, if any. The date when the Journal receives the final complete version response to all the editor’s comments is counted as the revised date (maximum 10 days from the receipt of the modified contents from the editor).

Step 2: Proofreading
On behalf of all co-authors, the corresponding author is responsible for the accuracy of all content (please ensure that the version uploaded is the final, accepted version of the manuscript), including spelling of names and current affiliations of all co-authors. The maximum time for this step is 03 days.

1.3.4. Publication process

When the final submitted manuscript has passed the editing process and got the final confirmation from the author, the manuscript will continue through the publication process.

During this period, the author will no longer have the right to withdraw or make any changes to their manuscripts.

Publishing with Ho Chi Minh City Open University Journal of Science, all articles will be approved and scheduled by the Editor-in-Chief, regarding the estimated online/printed version, volume, issue, and order on the table of content.  The approval time will be displayed in the article information section.

The articles will be published online right after approval for publication. Many manuscripts are published online ahead of the print publication date. The Journal will inform the corresponding authors by email about the estimated online/printed publication date.

The publication schedule is available on the website of the Journal.

All the publishing work will be done by the Journal (layout, online publishing, printed version check, censorship, legal copyrighting).

After publication, the Journal will send each author a copy of the printed version as a gift. All authors can ordering reprints by contacting the Journal Office.

1.4. Website usage

1.4.1. Account registration

1.4.2. Profile updating

1.4.3. Submission

1.4.4. Track your paper status

1.4.5. Revision

Back to top

 

2. For reviewers

2.1. Policies and Processes

2.1.1. Policies

The general peer-review policy is available in the policy section announced by the Journal.

The Journal has adopted a double-blind review policy. The peer-review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; all information will be exchanged through the Journal, if any. Reviewers should check all the information provided by the Journal before undertaking to review  manuscripts or submitting the review reports to the Journal.

Only the manuscripts that seem qualified and meet the editorial screening criteria are sent for formal review. The Journal requests the reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system by following the link provided in the invitation email.

When the reviewers agree to access the paper, they need to make sure:

+ The reviewers’ expertise: The reviewers are currently or recently assessing related submissions;

+ The Journal’s policies;

+ The availability to access the manuscript within the requested time (maximum 20 days for the first round and 07 days for the second round): When reviewers agree to access a manuscript, we consider this a commitment to willingly review the subsequent revisions and provide follow-up advice as requested. If the reviews anticipate a longer delay in some exceptional cases, please kindly let us know so that we can keep the authors informed. Otherwise, for some overdue manuscripts, the Journal might ask the support of the reviewer to shorten the review time. For any reason that the Journal does not get feedback from the reviewers, the Journal has to find alternative reviewers to ensure the review time;

+ The potential conflicts of interest (any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the work). The Journal will request the reviewers to disclose any professional and commercial competing interests that might affect their review, and to decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.

Depending on the above conditions’ satisfaction and other personal reasons, the experts may choose to accept or decline the invitation to review the submitted manuscript.

Based on the review form provided by the Journal the reviewers will objectively, academically freely, confidentially give their comments/advice about the work. Any scientific comments on the manuscript should be stated and sent to the authors to improve the manuscript’s quality. The recommendations should instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their manuscripts to the point where it may be acceptable. The feedbacks should be polite, constructive, avoiding offensive language or comments that reveal confidential information about other matters. 

Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action. The most helpful reports will provide the Journal (Editor-in-Chief or editors) with the information on which a decision should be based (acceptance, revision required, re-submit for the second review, or decline submission).

  • Reviewers' evaluation will focus on the following points:
    • The title
    • The abstract & keywords
    • The introduction
    • The research purposes, context
    • The theoretical basis
    • The research methodology and database
    • The scientific and practical contribution of the article
    • The manuscript’s format and spelling / grammatical errors
    • The reference list
  • Rating the manuscript according to the opinion of the reviewer (including seven levels):
    • A-Excellence
    • B-Very good
    • C-Good
    • D-Acceptable
    • E-Below average
    • F-Poor
  • Reviewers’ recommendations: Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review. After evaluating all of the technical aspects of the paper thoroughly and fairly, the reviewers will select one of the following suggestions:
    • Accept submission (without any revisions)
    • Revisions required (the manuscripts get accepted once the authors have made some revisions in response to the reviewers’ comments, no second review needed)
    • Re-submit for review (Some considerable technical objections have been raised. The revised papers need to be sent back to the reviewers for re-evaluation)
    • Decline submission (The reasons need to be clarified in the evaluation form to explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscripts so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision)
  • The reviewers’ rating and recommendations should be compatible:
    • Levels A-D: Accept submission (with or without the modification, or resubmit for the second review)
    • Level E-F: Decline submission

After receiving the review results, the Journal might go back to the reviewers for further recommendations or provide follow-up advice when having a solid scientific case for reconsideration, particularly in cases of:

+ Where the reviewers disagree with each other;

+ Where the authors wish to preserve opinions and/or believe that some specific technical/ points of interest have been misunderstood.

Final decision: The primary purpose of the review process is to provide the Journal with the information needed to reach a decision. The Journal will consider all points of view (reviewers, editors, and authors) and might draw a conclusion based on conflicting advice/feedback. The revision versions might be required if needed. The Editor-in-Chief will make the final informed decision on the manuscript, and sometimes, it may not coincide with the recommendations from one of the reviewers (The overruled reviewers should realize that this does not imply any lack of confidence in their judgment).

Reviewers are responsible for strictly maintaining the confidentiality of all the peer review process’s details. Reviewers may not share any of the information with anyone or contact the author directly without consulting with the Journal.

2.1.2. Processes

After the manuscript has been undergone the editorial screening, the manuscript will enter the peer-review process.

Step 1:

The Editor-in-Chief will authorize the editors/section editors to send the invitation to identified reviewers who are selected and included in the reviewer list approved by the Editor-in-Chief. The maximum response time for both the editor and reviewer is 03 days.

Step 2:

The Journal has implemented a double-blind review policy. The peer-review process is confidential and conducted anonymously, and all information will be exchanged through the Journal, if any.

The maximum duration of the review process is 20 days (first round) and 07 days (second round) of receiving a manuscript and accepting the review invitation.

Step 3:

After having the result of the first round, the Editor-in-Chief /editors then make a decision, in the light of the reviewers/editors’ advice, among four options: (1) Accept submission; (2) Revisions required; (3) Re-submit for review (second round); (4) Decline submission.

All manuscripts will go through at least one round of review, sometimes two, based on the recommendation from the first reviewer, decided by the Editor-in-Chief/editors.

Authors can track the manuscripts’ status, shown on the status column of the online system. At the same time, the editor will email the review result - the editor’s decision (one out of four options) attached the revision request for the manuscript’s content/format (if it is options (2), (3), and the apparent reasons if it is the option (4)).

Step 4:

In the light of fist reviewers/editors’ recommendations (round one), if the decision is (2) Revisions required or (3) Resubmit for review (second round): within 10 days, the revised papers are sent back to the Journal accompanied by a point-by-point response to all the specific concerns given by the reviewers/editors. Regarding option (3), all the review processes (first and second round) will be repeatedly implemented. If the manuscripts are evaluated by two or three reviewers, the process will happen as same as the first review.

All manuscripts could be reviewed by typically one reviewer, sometimes two or three if particular advice is needed (could be parallelly or serially), determined by the Editor-in-Chief/editors. All manuscripts go through at least one round of review, sometimes two, based on the first reviewer/editor/section editor/Editor-in-Chief decision.

All decisions regarding review results are displayed in the status bar and notified by email to the authors.

After completing the review stage, the status bar will show "In editing": The manuscript continues to enter the editing stage.

See the general flowchart of the reviewing process

2.2. Review form

 

2.3. Website usage

 

Typically, the Journal will invite experts to become the reviewers based on its criteria. The selected ones will receive a welcome email, accompanied with users’ credentials - typically username and password combination, which users could likely make a change later. After this point of time, they will become one of the Journal’s reviewers  (if there are no changes from the Journal & reviewers).  If you have already done a reviewer’s job before, just log into your account and continue the review process as usual.

After receiving an invitation to review a manuscript via email that contains the title, abstract, and links to accept or decline the invitation, the reviewer will enter their provided account and feedback to the Journal if they Will do the review or Unable to do the review (Step 1). If the answer is Accepted, the reviewer will continue the review process with the step-by-step instruction as shown below (Step 2,3,4,5).

 

Note: Reviewers make their assessments and evaluations of the manuscript on the Reviewer Form specially designed according to the Journal’s criteria (Step 3). To complete the review process (Round 1), the reviewers must select one of the Recommendations and Submit Review to Editor (Step 5).

Back to top