Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope

The topics of interest include:

  • Learning sciences, interdisciplinary field that works to further scientific understanding of learning as well as to engage in the design and implementation of learning innovations, and improvement of instructional methodologies. This includes cognitive science, education science, computer science, educational psychology, anthropology, and applied linguistics.
  • Physical sciences: engineering, physics, astronomy, chemistry, marine, aerospace, earth and atmospheric science
  • Life sciences, the scientific study of living organisms, such as microorganisms, plants, animals, and human beings, as well as related considerations like bioethics.
  • Medical sciences: all branches of life and physiological sciences, including physics and bioengineering fields.
  • Social sciences:  anthropology, economics, political science, psychology and sociology.
  • Applied and interdisciplinary sciences: biomedicine, medical microbiology, clinical virology, genetic epidemiology etc.


Section Policies

Editorial Note

Unchecked Open Submissions Unchecked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Book Review

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Unchecked Peer Reviewed

Research Paper

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Research Note

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Short Communication

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Review Articles

Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

The editor appreciates fully the need of the authors to publish their research work in a timely manner. Authors can receive a decision about their paper in 1-3 months since the date of submission.  

All submitted manuscripts will undergo a double blind review process to maintain objectivity. Meaning that the authors would not know who are reviewing their manuscripts and similarly the reviewers are provided with anonymous manuscripts. All relevant information that could be used to infer the authorship and affiliation (such as one in the acknowledgement or references) would be first deleted prior to review. 

The preliminary review of the submitted manuscript will be done by the editor. If the article is considered suitable for publication, it will be sent to two reviewers. The result of review can be categorized into four levels:

  • Accept as is
  • Accept with minor revision
  • Accept with major revision
  • Reject or recommend for resubmission

The editor-in-chief reserves the right to make decision over and above reviewers's opinion. 


Author Self-Archiving

This journal permits and encourages authors to post items submitted to the journal on personal websites or institutional repositories both prior to and after publication, while providing bibliographic details that credit, if applicable, its publication in this journal.


Delayed Open Access

The contents of this journal will be available in an open access format 12 month(s) after an issue is published.

The publisher of PCS used CC-BY license meaning that the authors of article would retain the copyright over their work while allowing world-wide access to download, print, distribute, read, and use their article with proper attribution. PCS is published using a hybrid delayed open-access model in which the article would be freely accessible 12 months after its publication date. At the recommendation of the editor, the publisher might occasionally publish a subcsription-based issue. Journal subscribers can access all the content immediately upon publication.




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. More...


Types of articles

The editor is considering the following types of article for publication with the Progress and Communication in Science:

  • Research paper: the paper that reflects innovative and original contribution through ongoing research endeavors. The article covers detailed and quantitative research material cast in the position relative to the state-of-the-art in the literature. 
  • Review paper: the paper that is focused on the comprehensive exposition of contribution on a particular subject area. The article contains critical reviews of literature and comparison of different approaches or methods. 
  • Technical note: a brief paper for rapid disclosure providing a novel development or progress in a certain field. 
  • Short communication: a condensed discussions (comments or response of comments) of papers formerly published within the journal.  


Publication ethics and malpractice statement

The Progress and Communication in Science practices the double blind review process to ensure the highest standard of publication quality and ethics. The publishing team –consisting of the Co-Editors, Associate Editors, Editor Advisory Board members and reviewers- takes its duties supervision over all the stages of publishing extremely seriously. The publication ethics and publication malpractice statement of the Progress and Communication in Science below is adapted from the Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and the position statements developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal reserved the right to withdraw any published article at any time if malpractice is discovered and ban the involved authors from future publication in the journal.  

1. Publication and authorship

(These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

  • Reporting standards Authors of reports 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. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial ‘opinion’ works should be clearly identified as such.
  • Originality and plagiarism The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Plagiarism takes many forms, from ‘passing off’ another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper. Publication of some kinds of articles (e.g. clinical guidelines, translations) in more than one journal is sometimes justifiable, provided certain conditions are met. The authors and editors of the journals concerned must agree to the secondary publication, which must reflect the same data and interpretation of the primary document. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
  • Acknowledgement of sources Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other 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. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible.

2. Author's responsibilities

(These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

  • Peer-review obligation Authors are obliged to participate in peer-review process.
  • Authorship of the paper Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on 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.
  • Data access and retention Authors are required to warrant that all data in article are real and authentic and may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
  • Fundamental errors in published works When an 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. If the editor or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the editor of the correctness of the original paper

3. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers

(These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

  • Contribution to editorial decisions Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication, and lies at the heart of the scientific method. PCS shares the view of many that all scholars who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing.
  • Promptness Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
  • Standards of objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Acknowledgement of sources 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. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
  • Disclosure and conflict of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the author. 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.

4. Editorial responsibilities

(These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

  • Publication decisions The editor of a peer-reviewed journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published, often working in conjunction with the relevant society (for society-owned or sponsored journals). The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editor 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 editor may confer with other editors or reviewers (or society officers) in making this decision.
  • Fair play An editor should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Confidentiality The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Editors will need to preserve the anonymity of the reviewers.
  • Disclosure and conflicts of interest Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Editors should recuse themselves (i.e. should ask a co-editor, associate editor or other member of the editorial board instead to review and consider) from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Editors should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should be taken, such as the publication of a retraction or expression of concern. It should be ensured that the peer-review process for sponsored supplements is the same as that used for the main journal. Items in sponsored supplements should be accepted solely on the basis of academic merit and interest to readers and not be influenced by commercial considerations.
  • Involvement and cooperation in investigations An editor should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher (or society). Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, and if the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or other note, as may be relevant. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.

5. Publishing ethics issues

(These guidelines are based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.)

  • Monitoring publishing ethics. The editorial board should monitor and safeguard the publishing ethics set forth by the journal. Monitoring publishing ethics is a major aspect of the peer-review process and as such lies within the area of responsibility of the editor-in-chief, or the scientific editor, of each journal. To enforce publishing ethics and detect misconduct, editors should rely on the reviews of referees, and post-publication, on comments from the scientific community at large.
  • Guidelines for retracting articles. The retraction of an article by its authors or the editor under the advice of members of the scholarly community has long been an occasional feature of the learned world. Standards for dealing with retractions have been developed by a number of library and scholarly bodies, and this best practice is adopted for article retraction by UNSYS. A retraction note titled “Retraction: [article title]” signed by the authors and/or the editor is published in the paginated part of a subsequent issue of the journal and listed in the contents list. In the electronic version, a link is made to the original article.
  • Maintain the integrity of the academic record. Whenever it is recognized that a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distorted report has been published, it must be corrected promptly and with due prominence. If, after an appropriate investigation, an item proves to be fraudulent, it should be retracted. The retraction should be clearly identifiable to readers and indexing systems.
  • Commercial considerations. Business needs should be precluded from compromising intellectual and ethical standards. Misleading advertisements must be refused, and Editors must be willing to publish criticisms, according to the same criteria used for material in the rest of the journal.
  • Full responsibility of content. Editors must always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.
  • No plagiarism and fraudulent data. The editorial board must ensure that the authors have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Likewise, they must make sure that no fraudulent data exist in the submitted and published articles.

ISSN: 2288-7113