About IJSEIAS
International Journal of Sustainable Engineering Innovations & Applied Sciences (IJSEIAS) is a peer-reviewed, open-access scholarly journal dedicated to advancing knowledge at the intersection of sustainable engineering, technological innovation, and applied scientific research. The journal provides a global platform for researchers, practitioners, and policy-oriented scholars to disseminate original, high-quality research that addresses contemporary sustainability challenges through engineering and applied science solutions.
The journal focuses on innovative methodologies, practical applications, and interdisciplinary approaches that promote environmental stewardship, economic viability, and social responsibility. Emphasis is placed on research that translates theoretical advancements into real-world engineering practices capable of supporting sustainable development goals at local, regional, and global levels.
Scope and Coverage
IJSEIAS welcomes original research articles, review papers, technical notes, and case studies in, but not limited to, the following areas:
Sustainable and green engineering technologies
Renewable and alternative energy systems
Environmental engineering and climate-resilient infrastructure
Sustainable materials, nanotechnology, and smart systems
Circular economy, waste management, and resource efficiency
Sustainable manufacturing and industrial innovation
Applied sciences for sustainability and environmental protection
Engineering solutions for water, food, and energy security
Artificial intelligence, IoT, and digital technologies for sustainable systems
The journal maintains rigorous editorial standards and a transparent peer-review process to ensure the publication of impactful and ethically sound research. By fostering collaboration between academia, industry, and policymakers, the International Journal of Sustainable Engineering Innovations & Applied Sciences aims to contribute meaningfully to sustainable technological progress and evidence-based decision-making.
Authors & Manuscript Preparation Guidelines
For Journals Hosted on Nexapub
1. Purpose of the Guidelines
These Manuscript Structure, Formatting, and Submission Guidelines establish uniform standards for the preparation and submission of manuscripts to all journals hosted on the Nexapub platform. The objective is to ensure consistency, readability, ethical compliance, and efficient peer review across all Nexapub journals.
All authors must strictly adhere to these guidelines prior to submission. Manuscripts that do not conform may be returned for correction or rejected without review.
2. General Manuscript Formatting Requirements
All manuscripts must be prepared using Calibri font, font size 10, and single line spacing throughout the document. Paragraphs must be lined paragraphs, aligned to the left margin, and must not be tab-indented. A single blank line should be used to separate paragraphs.
The formatting rules apply uniformly to the title page, abstract, main text, tables, figures, references, appendices, and supplementary materials.
Margins must be standard and consistent on all sides. Pages must be consecutively numbered.
3. Language and Writing Style
Manuscripts must be written in clear, formal academic English. Authors may use either British or American English, but consistency must be maintained throughout the manuscript.
Authors must avoid colloquial expressions, informal language, and ambiguous phrasing. Technical terminology should be used accurately, and discipline-specific terms should be clearly explained where necessary.
Acronyms and abbreviations must be defined at first use and used consistently thereafter.
4. Referencing and Citation Style
All Nexapub-hosted journals require APA referencing style (7th edition) unless explicitly stated otherwise by a specific journal.
In-text citations must follow the author–date format. Page numbers must be included for direct quotations. Multiple citations within a single parenthesis must be arranged alphabetically.
The reference list must be placed at the end of the manuscript and arranged alphabetically by the surname of the first author. Only sources cited in the manuscript should appear in the reference list.
Authors are responsible for ensuring the completeness, accuracy, and consistency of all references. Manuscripts with poorly formatted or incomplete references may be returned for correction.
5. Required Manuscript Structure
Unless otherwise specified by a journal, manuscripts submitted to Nexapub should be structured as follows:
Title of the manuscript
Full names of all authors
Author affiliations and institutional addresses
Corresponding author email address
Abstract
Keywords
Main body of the manuscript
Conclusion
Acknowledgements (if applicable)
Funding statement
Conflict of interest declaration
Data availability statement (where applicable)
References
Each section must be clearly labeled and presented in logical order.
6. Title Page
The title page must include the full title of the manuscript, which should be concise, informative, and reflective of the study’s content.
Author names must be presented in full, without academic titles. Institutional affiliations must include the department, institution name, city, and country. The corresponding author must be clearly identified, along with a valid email address.
7. Abstract
The abstract must provide a clear and concise summary of the study, including the research objective, methodology, key findings, and conclusions.
Unless otherwise stated by a journal, abstracts should not exceed 250 words and must be written as a single paragraph without citations.
8. Keywords
Authors must provide between three and six keywords immediately following the abstract. Keywords should be relevant, specific, and reflective of the main themes of the manuscript.
9. Main Body of the Manuscript
The main text should be logically organized using clear headings and subheadings. For empirical studies, the following structure is recommended where appropriate:
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
Results
Discussion
For theoretical or review papers, authors should use a coherent structure appropriate to the nature of the study.
Headings should be clearly distinguished but should not rely on excessive formatting or numbering unless required by the journal.
10. Tables and Figures
Tables and figures must be cited in the text and numbered consecutively in the order of appearance.
Each table must have a clear and descriptive title placed above the table. Figures must have captions placed below the figure.
Tables and figures should be presented as close as possible to their first mention in the text. Authors must ensure that all tables and figures are of high quality and readable.
11. Equations and Symbols
All equations must be clearly presented and, where necessary, numbered consecutively. Symbols and variables must be defined at first use.
Authors should ensure consistency in mathematical notation throughout the manuscript.
12. Acknowledgements
The Acknowledgements section should recognize individuals or institutions that contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship. Written consent must be obtained from all acknowledged individuals.
13. Funding Statement
Authors must disclose all sources of funding that supported the research. If no funding was received, authors must explicitly state that the research received no external funding.
14. Conflict of Interest Declaration
All authors must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could influence the research or interpretation of findings. If no conflicts exist, a clear statement declaring the absence of conflicts must be included.
15. Data Availability Statement
Where applicable, authors must provide a data availability statement indicating where and how the data supporting the findings can be accessed. If data are not publicly available, authors must clearly state the reason.
16. Submission Process
Manuscripts must be submitted through the official Nexapub submission system or the journal’s designated submission platform.
All required metadata must be accurately completed at submission, including author details, affiliations, abstract, keywords, and declarations.
Submission of a manuscript implies that the work is original, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration elsewhere.
17. Compliance and Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening to assess compliance with these guidelines. Manuscripts that fail to meet formatting, structural, or ethical requirements may be returned for correction or rejected without peer review.
References (APA Style)
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). COPE discussion document: Authorship. COPE.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Defining the role of authors and contributors.
Reviewers Guidlines
For Journals Hosted on Nexapub
1. Purpose of the Guidelines
These Reviewer Guidelines are designed to ensure that manuscripts submitted to Nexapub-hosted journals are evaluated fairly, consistently, and ethically. The guidelines outline the responsibilities, expected conduct, and evaluation standards for all peer reviewers. Compliance ensures the integrity of the review process, maintains high editorial standards, and aligns with COPE, DOAJ, and ICMJE recommendations (COPE, 2019; ICMJE, 2023).
2. Reviewer Responsibilities
All reviewers must:
Provide Objective Evaluation
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based solely on scholarly merit, originality, relevance, clarity, and methodological rigor, without regard for the authors’ identity, institution, nationality, or personal characteristics.Maintain Confidentiality
Manuscripts, data, and any other information associated with the review process must remain strictly confidential. Reviewers must not use knowledge gained from the review for personal advantage or discuss it with others outside the editorial process.Declare Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must immediately disclose any conflicts of interest, including financial, personal, professional, or collaborative relationships with the authors or the subject matter. Conflicted reviewers should decline the assignment.Adhere to Timelines
Reviewers should complete evaluations within the timeframe specified by the journal. Timely reviews ensure efficient editorial processing and respect the efforts of authors and editors.Provide Constructive Feedback
Comments should be clear, specific, and constructive, aimed at improving the manuscript. Feedback must include both major concerns (e.g., methodology, interpretation of results) and minor issues (e.g., clarity, formatting, references).
3. Confidentiality and Ethical Obligations
Reviewers must comply with the highest standards of academic integrity:
Do not share or reproduce any part of the manuscript prior to publication.
Avoid personal bias or inappropriate commentary in the review report.
Refrain from using the manuscript’s data or ideas in any research prior to publication.
Report suspected ethical violations (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation) to the editor immediately.
Failure to comply may result in removal from the reviewer pool and notification to affiliated institutions.
4. Review Process and Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following general criteria:
Originality and Novelty
Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge, perspectives, or findings to the field?Relevance and Scope
Does the manuscript align with the scope and objectives of the journal?Methodological Rigor
Are the study design, methodology, and data analysis appropriate, accurate, and reproducible?Results and Interpretation
Are the findings clearly presented and logically interpreted? Are conclusions supported by the evidence?Clarity, Organization, and Style
Is the manuscript well-structured, logically organized, and clearly written? Are tables, figures, and references appropriately formatted?Ethical Compliance
Are human or animal subjects protected? Are all ethical approvals and consent statements included? Are conflicts of interest declared?
5. Reviewer Report Structure
Reviewers should provide feedback in a structured manner. A recommended format includes:
Summary of Manuscript
Provide a brief summary of the study, highlighting the research objectives, methodology, and main findings.Major Comments
Identify critical issues that must be addressed prior to acceptance (e.g., study design, statistical analysis, interpretation errors).Minor Comments
Highlight less critical issues such as language, formatting, references, and figure quality.Recommendation to Editor
Reviewers must recommend one of the following actions:Accept without revisions
Accept with minor revisions
Revise and resubmit (major revisions)
Reject
Recommendations should be justified clearly and professionally.
6. Reviewer Eligibility
Nexapub seeks reviewers who:
Hold relevant academic or professional qualifications in the subject area
Possess prior research experience and publications in peer-reviewed journals
Demonstrate familiarity with current research methods and reporting standards
Commit to ethical and timely reviews
Editors may also assign early-career researchers as co-reviewers under mentorship.
7. Reviewer Recognition
Nexapub values the contributions of reviewers and may provide:
Official acknowledgment in journal issues or online
Certificates of reviewing service
Inclusion in reviewer databases for career recognition
8. Timeliness of Review
Standard review timelines for Nexapub-hosted journals are:
Initial Review: 14–21 days from assignment
Revision Review (if applicable): 7–14 days
Reviewers are expected to notify editors promptly if timelines cannot be met.
9. Ethical and Reporting Guidelines References
Reviewers should base their evaluation on recognized publication ethics and reporting guidelines, including:
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) recommendations
Discipline-specific reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE, ARRIVE)
10. Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Declaration
Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest and agree to maintain confidentiality. If a conflict arises after accepting the review, the reviewer must notify the editor immediately.
References (APA Style)
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). COPE discussion document: Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. COPE.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
AI Use and AI-Assisted Writing policies
For Journals Hosted on Nexapub
1. Purpose of the Policy
The AI Use & AI-Assisted Writing Policy establishes clear guidelines for the ethical, responsible, and transparent use of artificial intelligence (AI) tools in the preparation of manuscripts submitted to Nexapub-hosted journals.
This policy aims to:
Ensure academic integrity and originality
Provide guidance on proper disclosure of AI use
Protect authors, editors, and reviewers from inadvertent ethical violations
Align Nexapub with COPE, DOAJ, and Scopus recommendations regarding AI in scholarly publishing (COPE, 2023; ICMJE, 2023).
2. Scope
This policy applies to:
All manuscripts submitted to Nexapub-hosted journals
All authors, co-authors, and contributors using AI tools in manuscript preparation
All content types, including research articles, reviews, case studies, and short communications
3. Definition of AI-Assisted Writing
For the purpose of this policy, AI-assisted writing refers to the use of software, machine learning models, or generative AI tools to create, summarize, translate, or edit textual, numerical, or graphical content in a manuscript. Examples include, but are not limited to:
Language editing and grammar correction
Automated text generation
Data visualization or figure generation using AI
Summarization of literature or datasets
4. Permissible Use of AI Tools
AI tools may be used strictly as assistance in:
Improving language clarity and grammar
Formatting citations and references in the required style (APA 7th edition)
Generating figures or tables from datasets under author supervision
Summarizing non-original background material for contextual purposes
Authors are prohibited from using AI to:
Generate original research ideas or results without human validation
Fabricate or manipulate data
Create fraudulent citations or references
Write substantial portions of the manuscript without proper attribution
5. Disclosure Requirements
All authors must explicitly disclose any AI tool used in manuscript preparation. Disclosure should include:
Name and version of the AI tool
Purpose of use (e.g., grammar correction, figure generation)
Extent of AI contribution in the manuscript
Disclosure must be included in a separate statement in the manuscript (e.g., “AI Use Statement”) and in the cover letter during submission.
Example disclosure statement:
“The authors used [AI tool name, version] for grammar and language editing. No AI tool was used for data analysis or interpretation of results.”
6. Authorship and Accountability
AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Only human contributors who meet the Nexapub authorship criteria may be listed as authors (see Authorship Guidelines).
Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of all manuscript content, including portions assisted by AI tools.
7. Ethical Compliance
Use of AI must comply with existing publication ethics standards, including:
Plagiarism and originality requirements
Data integrity and reproducibility standards
Protection of confidential and sensitive information
Human and animal research ethics
Any violation of ethical standards due to AI-assisted content may result in manuscript rejection, retraction, or institutional notification.
8. Reviewers and AI-Assisted Content
Reviewers must be aware that portions of a manuscript may have been generated or edited with AI. Their evaluation should focus on:
Accuracy and validity of the content
Appropriateness of AI use disclosure
Methodological and ethical soundness
Reviewers should report any suspected misuse of AI in the manuscript to the editor.
9. Editorial Responsibilities
Editors must:
Ensure AI use is disclosed and documented in each manuscript
Verify that AI-assisted content complies with ethical, methodological, and reporting standards
Reject manuscripts with undisclosed or inappropriate AI use
Provide guidance to authors regarding acceptable AI use
10. Consequences of Non-Compliance
Failure to disclose AI use or misuse of AI in manuscript preparation may result in:
Immediate manuscript rejection
Post-publication corrections or retractions
Notification to the authors’ affiliated institutions
Temporary or permanent removal from submission privileges
References (APA Style)
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2023). COPE discussion document: Artificial intelligence and scholarly publishing. COPE.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
Peer Review Policy
For Journals Hosted on Nexapub
1. Purpose of the Policy
The Peer Review Policy establishes the standards and procedures for evaluating manuscripts submitted to Nexapub-hosted journals. The aim is to ensure:
Rigorous, objective, and fair evaluation of scholarly work
Transparency and consistency in the review process
Compliance with ethical and publication integrity standards (COPE, 2019; ICMJE, 2023)
Timely editorial decisions to authors
This policy applies to all types of manuscripts, including research articles, reviews, case studies, short communications, and letters to the editor.
2. Peer Review Models
Nexapub journals may adopt one of the following peer review models, depending on the journal’s scope:
Single-Blind Review
Reviewers know the authors’ identities, but authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.Double-Blind Review
Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript.Open Review
Both reviewers’ and authors’ identities are disclosed. Reviewer reports may be published alongside the article.
The chosen review model is clearly stated in the journal’s “Instructions for Authors.”
3. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
Subject-matter expertise
Relevant academic qualifications and prior publications
Prior reviewing experience and demonstrated ethical conduct
Editors avoid selecting reviewers with conflicts of interest. Potential conflicts include financial, personal, or institutional relationships with the authors or study topic.
4. Review Process
Initial Screening
Editors conduct a preliminary assessment to verify compliance with formatting, ethical standards, originality, and scope. Manuscripts that fail initial screening may be rejected without external review.Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts passing initial screening are sent to two or more independent reviewers for evaluation. The editor may request additional reviews if needed.Review Reports
Reviewers submit structured reports, including major comments, minor comments, and recommendations (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, reject).Editorial Decision
Editors consider reviewer reports, author responses, and journal standards to make the final decision. The decision is communicated promptly to the authors.
5. Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers must:
Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased evaluations
Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content
Declare any conflicts of interest
Complete reviews within the requested timeframe (typically 4– 8 days)
Reviewers should use the structured feedback format recommended in the Nexapub Reviewer Guidelines.
6. Author Responsibilities During Peer Review
Authors must:
Respond to reviewer comments clearly and thoroughly
Revise manuscripts according to reviewer feedback
Provide detailed point-by-point responses in a “Response to Reviewers” document
Ensure all revisions maintain ethical compliance, originality, and clarity
7. Timelines for Peer Review
Nexapub aims for timely editorial decisions:
Initial review: 4–8 days from reviewer assignment
Revision review (if applicable): 2-5 days
Final editorial decision: within 3 days of completing reviewer reports
Authors and reviewers are expected to adhere to these timelines to maintain the efficiency of the publication process.
8. Ethical Considerations
The peer review process must adhere to the highest ethical standards:
Reviewers must not use manuscript content for personal gain
Editors must ensure fair and unbiased assessment
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed by both authors and reviewers
Suspected misconduct (plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication) must be reported to the editor
Nexapub reserves the right to take corrective action if ethical breaches occur during review, including withdrawal or retraction of manuscripts.
9. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe the review process was compromised. Appeals must be submitted in writing, detailing the grounds for the appeal. Editors will review the appeal and may involve independent editorial board members for resolution.
10. Transparency and Recognition
Reviewer identities and reports may be acknowledged depending on the journal’s peer review model.
Nexapub recognizes reviewer contributions through certificates, acknowledgment in journal issues, or inclusion in reviewer databases.
References (APA Style)
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). COPE discussion document: Peer review. COPE.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
For Journals Hosted on Nexapub
1. Purpose of the Statement
The Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement establishes the ethical standards, responsibilities, and procedures for handling suspected misconduct in all journals hosted on Nexapub.
Its objectives are to:
Maintain the integrity, quality, and credibility of published research
Ensure compliance with international ethical guidelines (COPE, 2019; ICMJE, 2023)
Provide clear protocols for reporting, investigating, and resolving ethical breaches
All authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff are required to adhere to these standards.
2. Responsibilities of Authors
Authors submitting manuscripts to Nexapub must:
Ensure that the work is original and has not been published elsewhere.
Properly cite all sources and references to avoid plagiarism.
Disclose all funding sources, potential conflicts of interest, and contributions of all co-authors.
Obtain and document ethical approvals for studies involving human participants, animals, or sensitive data.
Maintain accurate records of data and research materials, ensuring reproducibility.
Disclose any use of AI or AI-assisted tools in manuscript preparation.
Failure to meet these obligations may result in manuscript rejection, retraction, or notification to the author’s institution.
3. Responsibilities of Editors
Editors are responsible for:
Upholding publication ethics and editorial independence
Ensuring fair and unbiased review of manuscripts
Detecting and investigating suspected misconduct (plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication)
Maintaining confidentiality of the review and submission process
Taking appropriate corrective action, including issuing corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions
Editors must recuse themselves if conflicts of interest arise.
4. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to:
Provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations
Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content
Declare any conflicts of interest
Report suspected ethical violations to the editor immediately
5. Definition of Misconduct
Nexapub considers the following acts as publication misconduct:
Plagiarism: Using others’ work without proper attribution
Data fabrication or falsification: Manipulating data or results
Duplicate submission or publication: Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals without disclosure
Improper authorship practices: Ghost, honorary, or guest authorship
Undisclosed conflicts of interest
Improper use of AI: Generating content without disclosure or using AI to misrepresent research
6. Handling Misconduct
Detection
Suspected misconduct may be identified by editors, reviewers, or readers. Nexapub uses plagiarism detection software and editorial checks.Investigation
The editorial team investigates allegations in accordance with COPE guidelines. Authors are given an opportunity to respond.Action
Depending on the severity, actions may include:Manuscript rejection during submission
Publication of corrections or expressions of concern
Retraction of published articles
Notification to the authors’ affiliated institutions
All investigations are confidential and conducted objectively.
7. Corrections, Retractions, and Expressions of Concern
Nexapub follows COPE recommendations for handling corrections and retractions:
Correction: Minor errors that do not affect the overall findings
Expression of Concern: Issued if the integrity of a publication is in question, pending investigation
Retraction: Issued if misconduct is confirmed or findings are unreliable
All corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions are published and linked to the original article.
8. Ethical Compliance in Research
Authors must comply with ethical standards relevant to their research discipline:
Human studies require informed consent and institutional ethical approval
Animal studies must adhere to recognized animal welfare standards
Sensitive or confidential data must be handled securely and anonymized as required
Failure to comply may result in manuscript rejection or retraction.
9. Transparency and Accountability
Nexapub journals maintain full transparency in the editorial process:
Conflicts of interest are disclosed for authors, reviewers, and editors
AI use is reported according to the AI Policy
Peer review processes are documented and audited
All parties involved in the publication process are accountable for ethical conduct.
References (APA Style)
Committee on Publication Ethics. (2019). COPE discussion document: Retraction guidelines. COPE.
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. (2023). Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
American Psychological Association. (2020). Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). APA Publishing.
Latest Articles
Oguejiofor, Victor Ikechukwu
Ibekwe, Basil Esom, Ph.D.; Udeh, Ikemefuna James and Bendor, Sampson A.
Chukwu, Ebele G.
Apeh, Andrew C. and Didiugwu, Ifeanyi F.
Ali, Uchenna V
