Author Guidelines

1. General Requirements

Authors are invited to submit original research articles, review articles, technical studies, or other scholarly contributions that fall within the scope of the journal. Manuscripts must present a clear scientific contribution and demonstrate relevance to current developments in the respective field.

All submitted manuscripts must be original works that have not been previously published and are not simultaneously under consideration for publication elsewhere. By submitting a manuscript, the authors confirm that the work complies with the journal's publication ethics and academic integrity requirements.

Authors are fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, validity, and integrity of the content presented in their manuscripts.

Manuscripts should demonstrate:

• a clearly defined research problem;

• a well-supported research gap;

• a clear research objective;

• an appropriate and sufficiently rigorous methodology;

• valid and reproducible results;

• critical analysis and discussion;

• a clear scientific contribution or novelty; and

• conclusions that are directly supported by the research findings.

---

2. Article Quality and Scientific Contribution

2.1 Title

The title should be concise, specific, informative, and accurately reflect the main focus of the research.

A good title should clearly indicate the principal research topic, object, method, or contribution without unnecessary words. Titles should avoid excessive use of abbreviations, overly broad statements, and claims that cannot be supported by the research.

The title should be sufficiently specific to facilitate indexing and retrieval through international academic databases.

2.2 Abstract

The abstract should provide a concise and self-contained summary of the manuscript.

For research articles, the abstract should generally contain the following elements:

1. Background or research problem – briefly describe the problem or motivation.

2. Objective – clearly state the purpose of the study.

3. Methods – identify the main methodology, dataset, experimental design, or analytical approach.

4. Results – present the most important quantitative or qualitative findings.

5. Conclusion – state the principal conclusion and scientific implication.

The abstract should normally be between 150 and 250 words, unless otherwise specified by the journal.

The abstract should not contain citations, tables, figures, equations, or unnecessary abbreviations. Authors should avoid vague statements such as "the results were good" and instead provide measurable or meaningful findings whenever possible.

2.3 Keywords

Authors should provide 3–6 keywords that accurately represent the major concepts, methods, objects, or applications discussed in the article.

Keywords should be specific and preferably use terminology commonly recognized within the relevant scientific community. Authors should avoid repeating words unnecessarily from the title.

---

3. Originality, Novelty, and Research Contribution

3.1 Originality

Submitted manuscripts must contain substantial original intellectual or scientific contributions.

The manuscript should not merely reproduce previously published findings, methods, or applications without providing a meaningful extension, improvement, comparison, validation, or new interpretation.

Authors are expected to clearly distinguish their work from previous studies.

3.2 Research Gap

The introduction must establish a clear research gap based on a critical review of relevant literature.

The research gap should explain:

• what is already known;

• what remains unresolved;

• limitations of previous approaches;

• why the unresolved issue is important; and

• how the present study addresses the identified gap.

A statement such as "few studies have investigated..." is insufficient unless it is supported by an appropriate and critical literature review.

3.3 Novelty and Contribution

The manuscript must explicitly identify its scientific or practical contribution.

Novelty may arise from, but is not limited to:

• a new method, model, framework, or algorithm;

• an improved or optimized existing approach;

• a novel combination of established methods;

• a new dataset or benchmark;

• a new application domain;

• a comprehensive comparative evaluation;

• an empirical finding that advances current understanding;

• a new theoretical or conceptual interpretation; or

• significant improvement over existing approaches.

The novelty claim must be supported by evidence and should not be based solely on the use of a different dataset, programming language, software package, or implementation environment.

---

4. Literature Review and References

4.1 Quality of References

Authors should use high-quality scholarly references that are directly relevant to the research.

Priority should be given to:

• peer-reviewed international journals;

• reputable national journals;

• recognized conference proceedings;

• scholarly books;

• authoritative standards;

• official datasets; and

• other reliable academic sources.

Authors should avoid relying excessively on non-scholarly websites, blogs, Wikipedia, commercial websites, or unverifiable online sources.

4.2 Primary Sources

A substantial proportion of the references should come from primary research sources, particularly peer-reviewed journal articles and high-quality conference proceedings.

Primary sources should be used to support important claims, research gaps, methodological choices, comparisons, and discussions of previous findings.

4.3 Recency of References

The literature review should reflect the current state of research.

Authors are strongly encouraged to include a substantial proportion of relevant literature published within the most recent five years, particularly for rapidly developing fields such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, computer vision, information technology, and data science.

Older references may be retained when they represent seminal theories, foundational methods, established algorithms, or historically significant studies.

4.4 Critical Literature Synthesis

The literature review should not be presented merely as a list of previous studies.

Authors should critically compare previous studies in terms of:

• research objectives;

• datasets or research objects;

• methodologies;

• experimental settings;

• evaluation metrics;

• strengths and limitations; and

• research outcomes.

Where appropriate, a comparison table may be used to demonstrate the position of the present study relative to previous research.

---

5. Scope and Scientific Relevance

Submitted manuscripts must clearly fall within the scope of the journal.

For journals focusing on information technology, computer science, and related disciplines, relevant topics may include, but are not limited to:

• Artificial Intelligence;

• Machine Learning;

• Deep Learning;

• Computer Vision;

• Data Mining;

• Natural Language Processing;

• Information Systems;

• Software Engineering;

• Computer Networks;

• Internet of Things;

• Multimedia;

• Robotics;

• Cybersecurity;

• Information Technology;

• Human–Computer Interaction; and

• other closely related areas.

Manuscripts that do not demonstrate sufficient relevance to the journal's scope may be rejected during the initial editorial screening.

---

6. Methodological Rigor

6.1 Research Design

The methodology must be described in sufficient detail to allow readers to understand how the study was conducted and, where applicable, reproduce the research.

Authors should clearly describe:

• research design;

• research workflow;

• dataset or research object;

• data collection procedures;

• preprocessing procedures;

• experimental setup;

• variables or parameters;

• algorithms or models;

• evaluation metrics;

• statistical or analytical methods; and

• software and hardware specifications where relevant.

6.2 Dataset and Data Description

For studies involving datasets, authors should clearly report:

• dataset name and source;

• number of samples;

• class distribution, where applicable;

• inclusion and exclusion criteria;

• data acquisition procedures;

• preprocessing;

• training, validation, and testing strategy;

• data augmentation, if used; and

• potential data limitations or biases.

Authors should clearly distinguish between publicly available datasets and datasets collected or developed specifically for the study.

6.3 Experimental Reproducibility

Computational and experimental studies should provide sufficient information to facilitate reproducibility.

Where applicable, authors should report:

• model architecture;

• parameter settings;

• hyperparameters;

• optimization method;

• learning rate;

• batch size;

• number of training epochs;

• hardware configuration;

• software environment;

• random seed or experimental repetition;

• baseline models; and

• evaluation procedures.

For machine learning and deep learning studies, authors are encouraged to report results from multiple runs or provide appropriate statistical evidence where feasible.

6.4 Baseline and Comparative Evaluation

Research involving new or improved computational methods should provide meaningful comparisons with appropriate baseline methods or state-of-the-art approaches.

Comparisons should use consistent datasets, evaluation metrics, and experimental conditions whenever possible.

Authors should avoid selecting comparison methods solely because they produce inferior results.

---

7. Results, Analysis, and Discussion

7.1 Results

Results should be presented clearly and objectively.

Tables, figures, graphs, confusion matrices, performance metrics, statistical analyses, or other appropriate visualizations may be used to communicate the findings.

Results should not simply repeat the same information in multiple formats.

7.2 Analysis

The analysis should explain the meaning and significance of the obtained results.

Authors should discuss:

• why particular results were obtained;

• factors influencing performance;

• differences between methods or experimental conditions;

• strengths and weaknesses of the proposed approach; and

• unexpected or contradictory findings.

7.3 Discussion

The discussion should connect the findings with previous studies and relevant theoretical concepts.

Authors should explain whether the findings:

• support previous research;

• contradict previous findings;

• extend existing knowledge;

• provide a new interpretation; or

• reveal limitations in existing approaches.

A strong discussion should demonstrate scientific reasoning rather than merely restating numerical results.

7.4 Limitations

Authors are encouraged to explicitly acknowledge the limitations of the study.

Limitations may relate to:

• dataset size;

• data diversity;

• experimental conditions;

• methodological assumptions;

• generalizability;

• computational resources;

• measurement limitations; or

• other factors that may affect interpretation of the findings.

Acknowledging limitations strengthens the scientific credibility of the manuscript.

---

8. Conclusions and Implications

The conclusion should directly address the research objectives and summarize the principal findings.

The conclusion should:

• present the main scientific findings;

• emphasize the contribution of the study;

• avoid introducing new results;

• avoid unsupported claims; and

• identify potential implications or future research directions where appropriate.

Future work should be based on actual limitations or unresolved issues identified in the study rather than being presented as a generic statement.

---

9. Author Information and Authorship

9.1 Author Names and Affiliations

Authors' names must be presented consistently and accurately.

Each author should provide:

• full name;

• institutional affiliation;

• department or program;

• institution;

• city;

• country; and

• institutional or professional email address.

The corresponding author must be clearly identified and will be responsible for communication with the editorial office.

9.2 Authorship Criteria

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made substantial contributions to the research and manuscript.

Authors are encouraged to clearly define individual contributions, including contributions to:

• conceptualization;

• methodology;

• data collection;

• software development;

• analysis;

• investigation;

• writing;

• reviewing and editing; and

• supervision or project administration.

Individuals who contributed to the research but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged appropriately.

---

10. Tables, Figures, and Supporting Materials

All tables and figures must be relevant, readable, and properly referenced in the manuscript.

Each table and figure must:

• have a sequential number;

• have a clear title or caption;

• be explicitly referenced in the text;

• use appropriate resolution and formatting;

• contain readable labels and legends; and

• include a source or attribution when applicable.

Figures should not be used merely for decorative purposes.

Authors should ensure that all third-party images, diagrams, datasets, or other copyrighted materials are used legally and appropriately acknowledged.

---

11. Citation and Reference Style

All sources cited in the manuscript must appear in the reference list, and all references listed must be cited in the manuscript.

Authors must use the citation and reference style specified by the journal consistently throughout the manuscript.

The use of reference management software such as Mendeley, Zotero, or EndNote is strongly recommended.

Authors should verify:

• author names;

• publication year;

• article title;

• journal or conference title;

• volume and issue;

• page numbers or article number;

• DOI or persistent identifier; and

• bibliographic accuracy.

Where available, authors are encouraged to provide DOI information for scholarly references.

---

12. Language and Academic Writing

Manuscripts must be written in clear, concise, formal, and academically appropriate English.

Authors should ensure:

• grammatical accuracy;

• logical sentence structure;

• appropriate academic terminology;

• consistency of technical terms;

• correct use of abbreviations;

• appropriate punctuation;

• consistent tense usage; and

• overall readability.

Authors whose first language is not English are strongly encouraged to have their manuscripts professionally proofread or reviewed by a proficient English speaker before submission.

Poor language quality may result in the manuscript being returned for revision before peer review.

---

13. Manuscript Structure and Formatting

Authors must follow the journal's official manuscript template and formatting requirements.

A typical research article should contain:

1. Title;

2. Author names and affiliations;

3. Abstract;

4. Keywords;

5. Introduction;

6. Related Work / Literature Review;

7. Materials and Methods;

8. Results;

9. Discussion;

10. Conclusion;

11. Acknowledgments, if applicable;

12. Conflict of Interest Statement, if applicable;

13. Data Availability Statement, where applicable; and

14. References.

The journal may modify this structure depending on the article type.

Authors must comply with the journal's requirements regarding:

• page size;

• margins;

• font;

• line spacing;

• heading structure;

• tables;

• figures;

• equations;

• citation style;

• reference formatting; and

• manuscript length.

---

14. Research Ethics and Integrity

Authors must comply with accepted standards of research integrity and publication ethics.

Submitted manuscripts must be free from:

• plagiarism;

• duplicate publication;

• fabricated data;

• falsified data;

• inappropriate image manipulation;

• citation manipulation;

• undisclosed conflicts of interest; and

• other forms of academic misconduct.

Where research involves human participants, personal data, animals, or other ethically sensitive materials, authors must comply with applicable ethical requirements and provide an ethics approval statement where appropriate.

---

15. Similarity and Plagiarism

All manuscripts may be subjected to similarity or plagiarism screening.

Authors must properly acknowledge all sources and distinguish their own contributions from previously published work.

A high similarity score may result in the manuscript being returned to the authors or rejected, depending on the nature and extent of the overlap.

Similarity screening is not considered the sole measure of plagiarism; editorial assessment will consider the context and nature of the detected similarity.

---

16. Artificial Intelligence and Generative AI

Authors should disclose the use of artificial intelligence or generative AI tools when such tools have materially contributed to the preparation of the manuscript.

AI tools must not be listed as authors.

Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, integrity, and ethical compliance of the submitted manuscript, including content generated or assisted by AI tools.

AI tools must not be used to fabricate data, generate false references, manipulate research results, or create misleading scientific evidence.

---

17. Data Availability and Research Transparency

Authors are encouraged to make research data, source code, models, protocols, and other supporting materials available whenever ethically and legally possible.

Where appropriate, authors should provide a Data Availability Statement indicating whether the data are:

• publicly available;

• available upon reasonable request;

• included within the article or supplementary materials; or

• restricted because of privacy, confidentiality, licensing, or ethical considerations.

For computational research, sharing source code and configuration information is strongly encouraged to improve transparency and reproducibility.

---

18. Conflict of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could reasonably be perceived as influencing the research or its interpretation.

If no conflict of interest exists, authors should state explicitly that there are no competing interests.

---

19. Funding and Acknowledgments

All sources of financial or institutional support for the research should be disclosed.

The funding statement should identify:

• funding agency;

• grant or project number, if applicable; and

• role of the funding organization, if relevant.

Individuals or institutions that contributed to the research but do not qualify for authorship may be acknowledged in the Acknowledgments section.

---

20. Submission Readiness Checklist

Before submitting a manuscript, authors should confirm the following:

• The manuscript is within the journal's scope.

• The manuscript presents an original scientific contribution.

• The research problem is clearly defined.

• The research gap is supported by relevant literature.

• The novelty and contribution are explicitly stated.

• The title is concise, specific, and informative.

• The abstract clearly presents the objective, methods, major results, and conclusion.

• Three to six relevant keywords are provided.

• Recent and high-quality primary references are adequately used.

• The methodology is sufficiently detailed and reproducible.

• Appropriate baseline or comparative methods are included where relevant.

• Evaluation metrics are clearly defined.

• Results are presented objectively and accurately.

• Results are critically analyzed and discussed.

• Study limitations are acknowledged.

• Conclusions directly address the research objectives.

• All tables and figures are properly numbered, captioned, and cited.

• All citations correspond to entries in the reference list.

• All references in the reference list are cited in the manuscript.

• References have been checked for bibliographic accuracy and DOI information.

• Author names and affiliations are complete and accurate.

• The manuscript follows the journal template and formatting requirements.

• The manuscript has been professionally proofread for English language quality.

• The manuscript has been checked for plagiarism and inappropriate text similarity.

• Any use of AI or generative AI tools has been disclosed where required.

• Data availability has been addressed where applicable.

• Funding information has been provided where applicable.

• Conflicts of interest have been disclosed.

• Ethical approval has been provided where applicable.

• The manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.

• All authors have approved the final version of the manuscript.

---

21. Editorial and Peer-Review Process

All submitted manuscripts are subject to an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability in terms of scope, originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, formatting, language, and ethical compliance.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will normally undergo peer review by independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

The editorial decision may include:

• Accept;

• Minor Revision;

• Major Revision; or

• Reject.

Authors receiving a revision decision should provide a clear response to each reviewer comment and indicate the changes made in the revised manuscript.

The final publication decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial authority.

---

22. Final Author Declaration

By submitting a manuscript, the authors confirm that:

1. the manuscript is original;

2. the work has not been published elsewhere;

3. the manuscript is not simultaneously submitted to another journal;

4. all authors have approved the submitted version;

5. all authors have made appropriate contributions;

6. all sources have been properly acknowledged;

7. the data and results are reported accurately;

8. ethical requirements have been fulfilled where applicable;

9. potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed; and

10. the authors agree to comply with the journal's editorial and publication ethics policies.

The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript before submission.

---

Author Guidance at a Glance

A high-quality manuscript should demonstrate the following fundamental characteristics:

Clear Problem → Strong Research Gap → Relevant Literature → Rigorous Method → Reproducible Experiment → Valid Results → Critical Discussion → Clear Novelty → Scientific Contribution → Well-Supported Conclusion

Authors are encouraged to view the manuscript not simply as a report of research activities, but as a scientific argument supported by evidence. Manuscripts that clearly establish the research gap, demonstrate methodological rigor, provide meaningful comparison with existing approaches, and articulate a defensible scientific contribution are more likely to meet the expectations of international peer-reviewed journals.