Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The RIMC (Robotics Integration, Manufacturing and Control) journal is interested in publishing high-quality research papers on a wide range of topics related to robotics and manufacturing. Some specific examples of high-quality research topics include:


• Development of new robotic systems and technologies for manufacturing applications
• Integration of robotics and automation into manufacturing processes
• Control algorithms for robots and manufacturing systems
• Sensor technologies for robotics and manufacturing
• Human-robot collaboration
• Robotics for sustainable manufacturing
• Robotics for Industry 4.0

Objectives

• Disseminate high-quality research on the application of robotics, computer-integrated manufacturing, and control technologies to manufacturing processes.
• Promote the development of new and innovative manufacturing strategies that are enabled by robotics and automation.
• Provide a forum for researchers, practitioners, and educators to share knowledge and ideas on the latest trends in robotics and manufacturing.
• Help to bridge the gap between academia and industry by encouraging collaboration and knowledge transfer.

 

Section Policies

Editorials

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Book Reviews

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed
 

Peer Review Process

Peer review is an essential and impartial process that ensures the quality of scholarly publishing. Like all reputable scientific journals, Robotics Integration, Manufacturing and Control (RIMC) relies on peer review to uphold its high standards. Below is an overview of the peer review and publishing process at RIMC.

The entire process, from initial submission to publication, typically takes about two months: one month for the review phase and another for the publication stage.

1. Initial Review
The editor first assesses all submitted manuscripts. In rare cases, exceptional manuscripts may be accepted at this stage. However, those lacking originality, containing significant scientific flaws, having poor grammar, or falling outside the journal’s scope are rejected. Manuscripts that meet the journal’s criteria are forwarded to at least two expert reviewers. Authors usually receive notification of rejection within two to three weeks.

2. Peer Review type
RIMC uses a single-blind review process, where the referees are aware of the authors' identities, but the authors do not know the referees' identities.

3. Selection of Referees
Referees are chosen based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript. The journal’s referee database is regularly updated, and it ensures that referees are not from the same country as the submitting author. While authors may suggest referees, the journal reserves the right to use or disregard these recommendations. Each manuscript is reviewed by two referees.

4. Peer-review Reports
Referees assess manuscripts based on key criteria related to scientific content, quality, and presentation:

  • Technical: Scientific rigor, accuracy, clarity of expression, and proper referencing.
  • Quality: Originality, relevance, motivation for the research, and whether the work justifies its length.
  • Presentation: Appropriate title, clear and informative abstract, high-quality figures and tables, and a well-written conclusion.

Referees are not required to correct language issues or perform copyediting.

5. Review Timeline
The review process generally takes about one month. If referee reports conflict or there are delays, a third opinion may be sought. Revised manuscripts are typically sent back to the original referees within one week, and multiple rounds of revision may be requested.

6. Editorial Decisions
After peer review, the editor-in-chief, with input from the associate editor, evaluates the referees' feedback and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Reject and resubmit (major revisions needed)
  • Reject

7. Final Decision
The final decision, along with the referees' comments and recommendations, is sent to the author. This report may include direct feedback from the referees.

8. Special Issues and Conference Proceedings Policy
Special issues and conference proceedings may follow a different peer review process, often involving guest editors or scientific committees. Authors contributing to these projects can request detailed information about the review process from the editorial office.

 

 

 

Publication Frequency

This journal is published 2 times per year.

Each one volume per year has two issues, namley, one in June and one in December of each year.

Special issue could be issued separately sometime between the regular issues. This will be announced before publishing the special issue.

 

Open Access Policy

RIMC journal provides immediate open access to all content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. RIMC grants usage rights to others using the open license CC-BY-NC allowing for immediate free access to the work and permitting any user to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose.

 

Publishing Ethics

RIMC Statement on Publication Ethics

RIMC is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and to supporting ethical research practices. 

RIMC adheres to follow the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Code of Conduct for Journal Editors. 

RIMC would like to refer reviewers to the Committee on Publication Ethics “COPE” Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers

RIMC would also encourage authors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics "COPE" website. 

The essentials of RIMC’s publishing ethics for all groups involved in the publishing process are as follows:

 

Ethics guidelines for editors

  • The editors have to declare that by joining the editorial board there is no conflict of interest with any other institutes or journals.
  • The editors should maintain the transparency of the academic research & record, preclude professional needs from cooperating ethical standards, and always be willing to publish retractions, rectifications, and erratum when required. 
  • The editors should attempt to ensure timely peer review and publication process and should avoid unnecessary delays. 
  • The editors and other editorial board members should not be involved in editorial decisions on their own submitted work. They should be excluded from publication decisions when they are authors or even have contributed to a manuscript. 
  • The editors should give peer reviewers explicit guidance on their role and responsibilities and monitor their performances for quality and timeliness. 
  • The editor should ensure confidential handling of the submitted manuscripts and not disclose any information on submitted manuscripts before their publication.
  • The editors should assess manuscripts for their scientific quality content, in an unbiased manner and free from any decisions based on discrimination of race, gender, geographical origin, or religion of the author(s). The editor should evaluate manuscripts regarding to their academic merit free of any self-interests. 
  • Promoting research rectitude must be preserved. If at any stage the publisher suspects any kind of misconduct in research, it should be investigated promptly in detail with suitable authority; and if any suspicious act of misconduct is observed in the peer review, it should be resolved with diligence. 

Ethics guidelines for reviewers

  • Peer reviewers should provide a detailed, constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and unbiased evaluation in a timely manner on the scientific content of the submitted work. They should judge each manuscript on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, academic degree or institutional affiliation of the author(s). 
  • Peer reviewers should play an important role in identifying any ethical concerns or misconduct in their evaluation of submitted manuscripts; such as possible data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, image manipulation, any violation of ethical treatment of animal or human subjects, unethical research, redundant or duplicate publication, conflict of interests and notify the journal editor as the possibility of such problems exists. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor about any financial or personal conflict of interest and declining to review the manuscript when a possibility of such a conflict exists. 
  • Peer reviewers have to declare any conflict of interest with any other institutes or journals.
  • Peer reviewers should respect the confidentiality of the complete review process. 
  • Peer reviewers should indicate whether the writing is relevant, concise & clear and evaluating the originality and scientific accuracy.
  • Peer reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might affect any person’s reputation. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to only agree to peer review manuscripts within their expertise and within a reasonable timeframe. 
  • Peer reviewers should notify the journal editor in the case of declining the review in any case. 
  • Peer reviewers are required to destroy submitted manuscripts and all related material after they have reviewed them.

Ethics guidelines for authors 

  • Authors should make publicly available all the results of their research and are accountable for the completeness and accuracy of their reports. 
  • Author(s) should warrant that the submitted manuscript is from their own original work, which does not infringe the intellectual property rights of any other person or entity, and it is free from any kind of plagiarism including their own previously published work. 
  • All authors named on the paper are equally held accountable for the content of a submitted manuscript or published paper although having different contributions. 
  • The work should not have been published elsewhere or submitted to any other journal(s) at the same time. 
  • Author(s) must clearly declare any potential conflict of interest. 
  • Author(s) must disclose all sources of funding for the research reported in the paper. 
  • If asked to provide a list of suggested reviewers, author(s) must provide the correct details for suitable reviewers with the appropriate experience to review, ensuring that the suggested reviewers do not have a conflict of interest.
  • Proper acknowledgements to other work reported (individual/company/institution) must be given. Permission must be obtained from any content used from other sources.

Post-publication discussions policy

  • RIMC accepts any comment, and critiques from the readers by sending an email to the editor-in-chief.
  • Editorial team of each journal is committed to collect all comments and criticisms related to each article and send to the author.
  • Authors are committed to response the readers within 4 weeks.

Retraction policy

Articles can be retracted in the following cases:

  • A certain plagiarism is detected.
  • It reports unethical research
  • There’s clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error (eg, miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (eg, of data) or falsification (eg, image manipulation)
  • The findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution to previous sources or disclosure to the editor, permission to republish, or justification (ie, cases of redundant publication)
  • It contains material or data without authorization for use
  • Copyright has been infringed or there is some other serious legal issue (eg, libel, privacy)
  • The author(s) failed to disclose a major competing interest (a.k.a. conflict of interest) that, in the view of the editor, would have unduly affected interpretations of the work or recommendations by editors and peer reviewers.

Complaints and appeals policy

  • RIMC welcomes any complaints against itself as a journal, members of the editorial boards, and staff of RIMC or any journal published by APC.
  • Any complaints from any parties can be composed directly to Prof. Dr. Yasser Gaber (ygd@aast.edu) the Dean of research, and manager of Academy Publishing Centre (APC)
  • RIMC is committed to deal with any complaints or appeals seriously, and give a response within two weeks of the receipt.

Research misconduct policy

RIMC allows reporting of research misconduct a published article or a manuscript under peer-review process. The following procedures can be followed for complaints of author misconduct:

  1. The editorial board of each journal receives a complaint that an article submitted to or published in the journal is suspected of containing research misconduct.
  2. The complainant needs to indicate clearly and directly the specific manner and details of misconduct
  3. The editorial board will conduct an investigation, during which time the editor of the journal and the corresponding author(s) of the suspected article will be in contact.
  4. The corresponding author(s) will be asked to provide an interpretations and any available evidence.
  5. If the author(s) of the suspected article accepts the misconduct complaint, the editorial board will take an action depending on the status of the article:
    1. If the article has been published, retraction may be necessary to remedy the situation.
    2. If the misconduct is reported during the review process, the review process may continue, with the author(s) making the relevant changes.
    3. If there’s no response from the author (s) or an unsatisfactory explanation, the article may be permanently retracted or rejected.
  6. The complainant will be informed of the outcome once the issue is resolved. 

RIMC Advertising policy

RIMC does not accept advertising and sponsorship for its website and social media accounts.

AI tools as author

RIMC is committed to COPE, WAME and the JAMA Network declaration to state that AI tools cannot be listed as an author of a paper. AI tools cannot meet the requirements for authorship as they cannot take responsibility for the submitted work.

Authors who submitted articles for publishing in APC’s journals are committed to the following:

  1. Any article submitted to RIMC that includes ChatGPT or any other AI tools as a co-author will be rejected immediately.
  2. If the submitted article included a citation to a document that was authored by ChatGPT or any other AI tools as a co-author will be rejected immediately.

 

Articles Publishing Charges (APCs)

RIMC is open-access with no charges (either Articles Processing Charges 'APCs' nor any submission charges). So all journals are free of charge for authors and readers, and operates an online submission with the peer review system allowing authors to submit articles online and track their progress via its web interface.

 

Digital Object Identifier, DOI of the RIMC

Digital Object Identifier

The RIMC is supported by Digital Object Identifier, DOI for each article from Cross Ref as listed in HERE.

The Code of the DOI of each article consists of the following format:

10.21622/RIMC.YYYY.VV.I.PPP

Where

10.21622     = Journal Identifier

RIMC           = Journal name

YYYY            = Four digits for the year

VV               = Two digits for the Volume Number 

I                  = One digit for the Issue Number

PPP              = Three digits for the Number of the first page of the article

 

To look for the paper on line, search for this link

https://dx.doi.org/10.21622/RIMC.YYYY.VV.I.PPP