- Focus and Scope
- Section Policies
- Peer Review Process
- Open Access Policy
- Archiving
- Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
- Author(s) Fee
- Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Focus and Scope
The Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Data Science (KEDS) stands as a trailblazing platform committed to advancing the frontiers of knowledge engineering and data science. KEDS distinguishes itself by integrating cognitive informatics with advanced data intelligence, offering a unique blend that pushes the boundaries of traditional research paradigms.
At the core of KEDS's mission lies the exploration of cognitive foundations in data modeling. The journal aims to inspire innovative data models that transcend conventional representations, emphasizing human-like understanding and adaptability. By unraveling the cognitive underpinnings, KEDS seeks to redefine the very fabric of how we conceptualize and model data structures.
KEDS endeavors to bridge the gap between symbolic representation and neural-inspired models. This involves pioneering research into neuro-symbolic knowledge representation techniques, fostering a new era of hybrid models that combine the best of both worlds. The journal strives to be a leader in exploring novel ways to represent knowledge, influenced by the intricate workings of the human mind.
Advancing languages and techniques for manipulating data, KEDS focuses on integrating human cognitive patterns. By placing emphasis on interpretability and usability, the journal seeks to develop data manipulation languages that resonate with the inherent ways humans comprehend and interact with information, thus making data systems more intuitive.
In the pursuit of intelligent systems, KEDS pioneers research into architectures inspired by cognitive science and informatics. This involves designing systems with human-like learning, reasoning, and problem-solving capabilities. By infusing cognitive architectures, the journal aims to redefine the landscape of intelligent systems, ushering in a new era of adaptable and insightful computational entities.
KEDS places a significant emphasis on methodologies and tools that prioritize user-centric design principles in the creation of data and knowledge systems. This approach ensures that these systems seamlessly align with human cognitive processes, providing a user experience that is not only efficient but also cognitively intuitive.
Ethics and human-centric considerations take center stage in knowledge acquisition. KEDS explores the ethical dimensions of acquiring knowledge, addressing concerns related to fairness, transparency, and the alignment of knowledge systems with fundamental human values. This approach ensures that the development of intelligent systems is not only technologically advanced but also socially responsible.
In the realm of security, KEDS delves into novel strategies that incorporate cognitive principles to build trust in data systems. This includes addressing privacy, integrity, and interpretability concerns through innovative approaches that enhance the cognitive security of data systems.
Revolutionizing data administration strategies, KEDS seeks to adapt dynamically to evolving cognitive patterns. This involves creating a harmonious interplay between human cognition and data management, ensuring that data administration is responsive to the nuanced and dynamic nature of cognitive environments.
KEDS serves as a showcase for applications that leverage cognitive informatics and data intelligence to solve real-world challenges. From healthcare to finance and smart cities, the journal highlights how cognitive data science can be applied to diverse domains, revolutionizing our approach to complex problem-solving.
Lastly, KEDS unveils and evaluates cutting-edge tools that empower data scientists with intelligent capabilities. The goal is to make data science more intuitive, accessible, and impactful by providing tools that harness the power of cognitive informatics and data intelligence.
In conclusion, the Journal of Knowledge Engineering and Data Science (KEDS) invites researchers and practitioners to contribute groundbreaking work that reshapes the landscape of knowledge engineering and data science. KEDS is dedicated to fostering a community at the forefront of cognitive data research, driving innovation and transformative advancements in the intelligent processing of information. Join us in shaping the future of cognitive informatics and data intelligence.
Section Policies
Articles
Open Submissions | Indexed | Peer Reviewed |
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
Editors first review the submitted manuscript, called initial review by the editors. It will be desk evaluated whether the submitted manuscript is suitable for the Knowledge Engineering and Data Science based on focus and scope, similarity score by using Crosscheck-iThenticate, methodological flaw, readability of the articles, and adhering to the submitted paper template.
Furthermore, the manuscript will be sent to at least three anonymous reviewers (Double-Blind Peer-Review).
The anonymous reviewers' comments are then sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Afterward, the editorial team meeting suggested the final decision to the revised manuscript by authors.
Finally, the Editor will send the final decision to the corresponding author.
The accepted manuscript then continued to the copyediting and layout editing process to prepare the camera-ready paper.
Review Outcomes
Utilizing feedback from the peer review process, the Editor will make a final publication decision. The review process will take approximately 4 to 12 weeks. Decisions categories include:
- Reject - Rejected manuscripts will not be published, and authors will not have the opportunity to resubmit a revised version of the manuscript to Knowledge Engineering and Data Science.
- Resubmit for Review– The submission needs to be re-worked, but with significant changes, it may be accepted. However, It will require a second round of review.
- Accept with Revisions - Manuscripts receiving an accept-pending-revisions decision will be published in Knowledge Engineering and Data Science under the condition that Minor or Major modifications are made. Revisions will be reviewed by an editorial team to ensure necessary updates are made prior to publication.
- Accept - Accepted manuscripts will be published in the current form, with no further modifications required.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.
Archiving
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...
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
KEDS aims to be a leading peer-reviewed journal platform and an authoritative source of information. We publish original research papers, review articles and case studies that has neither been published elsewhere in any language, nor is it under review for publication anywhere. This following statement clarifies ethical behavior of all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in this journal, including the author, the editor, the reviewer, and the publisher. This statement is based on COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.
Duties of Authors
- Reporting Standards: Authors should present an accurate account of the original research performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Researchers should present their results honestly and without fabrication, falsification or inappropriate data manipulation. A manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Manuscripts should follow the submission guidelines of the journal.
- Originality and Plagiarism: Authors must ensure that they have written entirely original work. The manuscript should not be submitted concurrently to more than one publication unless the editors have agreed to co-publication. Relevant previous work and publications, both by other researchers and the authors’ own, should be properly acknowledged and referenced. The primary literature should be cited where possible. Original wording taken directly from publications by other researchers should appear in quotation marks with the appropriate citations.
- Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publications: Author should not in general submit the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently. It is also expected that the author will not publish redundant manuscripts or manuscripts describing same research in more than one journal. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple publications arising from a single research project should be clearly identified as such and the primary publication should be referenced
- Acknowledgement of Sources: Authors should acknowledge all sources of data used in the research and cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given.
- Authorship of the Paper: The authorship of research publications should accurately reflect individuals’ contributions to the work and its reporting. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. Others who have made significant contribution must be listed as co-authors. In cases where major contributors are listed as authors while those who made less substantial, or purely technical, contributions to the research or to the publication are listed in an acknowledgement section. Authors also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted version of the manuscript and their inclusion of names as co-authors.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should clearly 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.
- Fundamental Errors in Published Works: If the author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, then the author should promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
- Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: The author should clearly identify in the manuscript if the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use.
Duties of Editor
- Publication Decisions: Based on the review report of the editorial board, the editor can accept, reject, or request modifications to the manuscript. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors 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 editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision. Editors have to take responsibility for everything they publish and should have procedures and policies in place to ensure the quality of the material they publish and maintain the integrity of the published record.
- Review of Manuscripts: Editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organize and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. Editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.
- Fair Play: The editor must ensure that each manuscript received by the journal is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to sex, gender, race, religion, citizenship, etc. of the authors. An important part of the responsibility to make fair and unbiased decisions is the upholding of the principle of editorial independence and integrity. Editors are in a powerful position by making decisions on publications, which makes it very important that this process is as fair and unbiased as possible.
- Confidentiality: The editor must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential. Editors should critically assess any potential breaches of data protection and patient confidentiality. This includes requiring properly informed consent for the actual research presented, consent for publication where applicable.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor of the Journal will not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his own research without written consent of the author. Editors should not be involved in decisions about papers in which they have a conflict of interest
Duties of Reviewers
- Confidentiality: Information regarding manuscripts submitted by authors should be kept confidential and be treated as privileged information. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
- Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have acknowledged all sources of data used in the research. 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. The reviewers should notify the journal immediately if they come across any irregularities, have concerns about ethical aspects of the work, are aware of substantial similarity between the manuscript and a concurrent submission to another journal or a published article, or suspect that misconduct may have occurred during either the research or the writing and submission of the manuscript; reviewers should, however, keep their concerns confidential and not personally investigate further unless the journal asks for further information or advice.
- Standards of Objectivity: Review of submitted manuscripts must be done objectively and the reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. The reviewers should follow journals’ instructions on the specific feedback that is required of them and, unless there are good reasons not to. The reviewers should be constructive in their reviews and provide feedback that will help the authors to improve their manuscript. The reviewer should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: 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. In the case of double-blind review, if they suspect the identity of the author(s) notify the journal if this knowledge raises any potential conflict of interest.
- Promptness: The reviewers should respond in a reasonable time-frame. The reviewers only agree to review a manuscript if they are fairly confident they can return a review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame, informing the journal promptly if they require an extension. In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within stipulated time then this information must be communicated to the editor, so that the manuscript could be sent to another reviewer
Author(s) Fee
KEDS does not charge any publication fee.
Policy of Screening for Plagiarism
Papers submitted to the Knowledge Engineering and Data Science will be screened for plagiarism using CrossCheck/iThenticate plagiarism detection tools. Knowledge Engineering and Data Science will immediately reject papers leading to plagiarism or self-plagiarism.
Before submitting articles to reviewers, those are first checked for similarity/plagiarism tool, by a member of the editorial team. The papers submitted to the Knowledge Engineering and Data Science must have a similarity level of less than 10% (Exclude Bibliography), and the similarity score to each source is no more than 3%.
Plagiarism is the exposure of another person’s thoughts or words as though they were your own, without permission, credit, or acknowledgment, or because of failing to cite the sources properly. Plagiarism can take diverse forms, from literal copying to paraphrasing the work of another. To accurately judge whether an author has plagiarized, we emphasize the following possible situations:
- An author can literally copy another author’s work- by copying word by word, in whole or in part, without permission, acknowledge or citing the original source. This practice can be identified by comparing the original source and the manuscript/work who is suspected of plagiarism.
- Substantial copying implies an author to reproduce a substantial part of another author, without permission, acknowledge, or citation. The substantial term can be understood both in terms of quality as quantity, being often used in the context of Intellectual property. Quality refers to the relative value of the copied text in proportion to the work as a whole.
- Paraphrasing involves taking ideas, words, or phrases from a source and crafting them into new sentences within the writing. This practice becomes unethical when the author does not properly cite or does not acknowledge the original work/author. This form of plagiarism is the more difficult form to be identified.