Editorial Policies

Focus and Scope


    Industrial Engineering

  1 .    Ergonomics

  2 .    Manufacturing

  3 .    TQM/quality engineering, reliability/maintenance engineering

  4 .    Production Planning

  5 .    Facility location, layout, design, materials handling

  6 .    Education, case studies

  7 .    Inventory, logistics, transportation, supply chain management

  8 .  Management

  9 .  Project/operations management, scheduling

 10 .  Information systems for production and management

 11 .  Innovation, knowledge management, organizational learning

  Mechanical Engineering

  1 .    Energy

  2 .    Machine Design

  3 .    Engineering Materials

  4 .    Manufacturing

  5 .    Mechatronics & Robotics

  6 .    Transportation

  7 .    Fluid Mechanics

  8 .    Optical Engineering

  9 .    Nanotechnology

 10 .  Maintenance & Safety

  Computer Science

  1 .    Computational Intelligence

  2 .    Computer Graphics

  3 .    Data Mining

  4 .    Human-Centered Computing

  5 .    Internet and Web Computing

  6 .    Mobile and Cloud computing

  7 .    Software Engineering

  8 .    Online Social Networks

  9 .    Applied Statistics, Mathematics and Informatics

   Natural Sciences

1. Computational Biology

2. Biological Sciences (Botany, Forestry, Cell Biology, Marine Biology, Zoology)

3. Genetics and Human Genetics

4. Molecular Biology

5. Microbiology

6. Cell biology

7. Environmental Biology

8. Biochemistry

9. Chemical Sciences

10. Physics



1. Heritage and conservation

2. Landscape design

3. Technology and sustainability in architecture

4. Civil engineering

4. Urban planning


Section Policies


  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Mechanical Engineering

  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Industrial Engineering

  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Electrical - Electronics

  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Computer Science

  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Genetics and Bioengineering

  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed


  • Benjamin Durakovic
Checked Open Submissions Checked Indexed Checked Peer Reviewed

Peer Review Process

Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences (PEN), applies single-blind peer-review. Reviewer selection for each submitted article is up to section editors, and reviewers are selected based on the previous experience, competence, and previous experience in reviewing papers for PEN journal.

Every submitted article is read by section editor, at least, for an initial review. If the paper reaches minimum quality criteria, follows the scope and aims of the Journal and fulfills the Editorial policies, it is sent to two reviewers for evaluation.

The reviewers evaluate the paper according to the Review guidelines set by editorial board members and return it to the section editors, who pass the reviewers' anonymous comments back to the author. Anonymity is strictly maintained.

The single-blind peer-review process is managed using this OJS software platform.

The process is divided into six or seven steps, intended to lead the Reviewer through the Review process.

Step 1
Reviewer has first to indicate to the Section Editor whether they will undertake the review. The decision should be made after reviewing the submission's Abstract and perhaps looking at the submission, by clicking on the file name in Step 3 (depending on the journal's policies, the file may not be available prior to the Reviewer agreeing to review it).

If unable to do the review. The Reviewer who is unable to do the review clicks on "Unable to do the review" which leads to a standard email to the Section Editor, which the Reviewer can revise to indicate, if they wish, why they are cannot do the review (e.g., timing, conflict of interest, lack of expertise, etc.).

If able to do the review. The Reviewer who is able to do the review clicks on "Will do the review," which leads to a standard email to the Section Editor, and which will indicate to Section Editor and Author that the review is underway.

Step 2
Consult the Reviewer Guidelines, found at the bottom of the Review page. The Reviewer Guidelines have been prepared by the Editors of the journal to ensure that the Review is as helpful as possible to them and the author.

Step 3
The Author has uploaded the submission as a file, which the Reviewer can download from the journal's web site to the Reviewer's computer by clicking on the file name. The file can be opened or saved to the computer and opened, using typically available programs such as Word or Acrobat. It can be printed out or read on the screen. The Supplementary Files refer to materials the Author may have uploaded in addition to the submission, such as data sets, research instruments, or source texts.

Step 4 (Optional)
In some cases, the journal may require the Reviewer to declare whether or not they have competing interests with the article being reviewed. If this is the case, Step 4 becomes a form requesting a declaration of Competing Interests, and all following steps change their step number accordingly. The Journal Manager can toggle this setting in Journal Setup Step 3.3.

Step 4
The Reviewer clicks on the Review icon and is presented with two Review text-boxes where the Review can be either entered by hand or pasted: one for the Editor and Author, and one visible to the Editor only. The Reviewer may enter or paste partial reviews into these boxes and click the Save button at the bottom of the form to return and make changes later. The Reviewer may return to make such changes until a recommendation on the main Review pages is chosen, at which time the Review process is complete.

Please note: the Journal manager, in conjunction with the journal's Editor(s), may have created an extended custom review form to be filled out here. More information on the custom form should be found in the Reviewer's Guidelines. The form can be returned to and edited until a recommendation has been chosen.

Step 5
The Reviewer also has the option, in addition to entering a Review, of uploading files for the Section Editor and/or the Author to see. These files may be a Reviewer-annotated version of the submission or some relevant data or other materials that will assist Editor and/or Author. It will be at the Editor's discretion whether these files are shown to the Author, but Reviewers can certainly comment on this in the Review (Step 4).

Step 6
The Reviewer must select a Recommendation for the submission from among the following options: Accept, Revisions Required, Resubmit for Review, Resubmit Elsewhere, Decline Submission, See Comments. When the Reviewer clicks "Submit Review to the Editor," it leads to a prepared email to the Section Editor, as well as making visible to the Editor the Recommendation, the saved Review (which are now locked) and any uploaded files. The email can be edited by the Reviewer before sending.


Publication Frequency

Starting with January 2022, journal is published bimonthly, with six issues per year.

Frequency of publication was twice per year until June 2019. In period June 2019 until December 2021 was four times per year.

Journal items can be published collectively, as part of an issue with its own Table of Contents. Alternatively, individual items can be published as soon as they are ready, by adding them to the "current" volume's Table of Contents.

Expected time to the first response is about seven weeks, while the time to publishing is a year. In this publishing process the journal does not make money. Full text of all published articles is immediately available worldwide to readers with free and unlimited access.


Publication in this journal does not require an APC.


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.



To create permanent archives of the journal for purposes of preservation and restoration, the National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina' is used as a legal obligation to archive mandatory copies. Additionally, as the whole journal content is open access it is included in the Internet Archive's' collections as well.


Journal Ethics and Malpractice Statement

PEN Journal is committed to ensure and uphold standards of ethical behavior at all stages of the publication process, whereby such values also rely on editors, reviewers, contributors and authors who are expected to behave ethically. The standards are based on Committee on Publication Ethics' (COPE) code of conduct, and provide guidelines for best practices in order to meet these requirements. The following ethical guidelines are only intended to give a summary of our key expectations of editors, peer-reviewers, and authors but if you have any questions or concerns please also feel free to contact the Editor of the Journal.

1. Ethical Expectations

Editors' responsibilities

• To carry out their duties in a fair, objective and consistent manner, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors.
• To take care that each article undergoes the proper peer-review process.
• To promote consistent ethical policies of PEN journal, and to ensure the confidentiality of the reviewing process.
• To uphold integrity in their work as editors of the journal, doing away with any personal interest, so that articles are considered and accepted solely on their academic merit and without commercial influence.
• To work with authors, reviewers, and the Editorial Board members to ensure the implementation of journals’ ethics and publishing policies.
• To adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature, in accordance with the policies and procedures. To handle process of complaints and giving authors an opportunity to respond any complaints. All complaints should be investigated and the documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.

Reviewers' responsibilities

• To act objectively, fairly and in a timely manner in reviewing submitted manuscript with the aim of improving its quality such as pointing out relevant published work, which is not cited, etc.
• To alert PEN in case of any competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing, or any potential conflict of interest that includes any relationship between reviewer and author, or any content that is substantially similar to that under review.
• To conduct themselves fairly and impartially.
• To keep the confidentiality of the review process and to not retain or copy the manuscript.

Authors' responsibilities

• To ensure that their work submitted to the journal is original and authored by them and has not been previously published nor under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
• To ensure that original ideas, data, findings and materials taken from other sources (including their own published writing) are properly documented and cited. Any content reproduced from other sources author should have permission.
• To ensure that their data is their won, true and not manipulated. Thus, authors are responsible to maintain accurate records and to provide access to their data associated with their manuscript.
• To ensure their work does not violate any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights. In addition, authors should ensure that any studies involving human or animal subject are in accordance with local lows and requirements.
• To declare any real or apparent conflicting or competing interest at any stage during the publication process that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on his/her duties.
• To alert PEN in case if a significant error in their publication is identified and correct any errors prior or subsequent to publication of their work.
• To adhere to all research ethics guidelines of their discipline, and to ensure that authorship and/or co-authorship of the paper was accurately represented.

PEN responsibilities

• The journal and shall ensure that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above.
• To deal with research misconduct allegations appropriately when it is occurred. The journal shall undertake reasonable actions to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred.
• To maintain the editorial independence of journal editors.
• To support journal editors in ethical and academic matters.
• To ensure critical and objective assessment of all articles by reviewers and referees. To
keep an accurate and transparent record, including publishing corrections and retractions when necessary.

The following commonly recognized procedure for dealing with unethical behavior is adopted.

2. Procedures for Dealing With Unethical Behavior

Identification of unethical behavior

• Misconduct and unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor at any time, by anyone.
• Misconduct and unethical behavior may include, but need not be limited to, examples as outlined above.
• For an investigation sufficient information and evidence should be provided. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached.


• An initial decision should be taken by the editor, who should consult with or seek advice from from relevant experts if appropriate.
• Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.

Minor breaches

• Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.

Serious breaches

• Serious misconduct might require that the employers of the accused be notified. The editor, in consultation with the relevant experts should make the decision whether or not to involve the employers, either by examining the available evidence themselves or by further consultation with a limited number of experts.

Outcomes (in increasing order of severity; may be applied separately or in conjunction)

• Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
• A more strongly worded letter to the author or reviewer covering the misconduct and as a warning to future behavior.
• Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
• Publication of an editorial detailing the misconduct.
• A formal letter to the head of the author’s or reviewer’s department or funding agency.
• Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer’s department, Abstracting & Indexing services and the readership of the publication.
• Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
• Reporting the case and outcome to a professional organization or higher authority for further investigation and action.


Originality and Plagiarism Policy

Authors by submitting their manuscript to PEN declare that their work is original and authored by them, their work submitted to PEN has not been previously published, original ideas, data, findings and materials taken from other sources (including their own published writing) are properly documented and cited, their work does not violate any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights, their data is their won, true and not manipulated. Plagiarism in whole or in part without proper citation is not tolerated by the Journal. Manuscripts submitted to the journal will be checked for originality using anti-plagiarism software.


Authorship and Contributorship

An individual to be listed as an author on the byline of the published paper must meet the following criteria:

• Substantial contribution to the conceptualization, design, data acquisition, analysis and results interpretation.
• Drafting or reviewing the article for intellectual content
• Approval of final version for publication
• Agreement to be accountable to investigate and resolve any question related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work.

All individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet the previous four criteria should be listed by name in the Acknowledgments.

Contributorship - Some types of contributions do not necessary justify authorship. This includes assisting to the research, general supervision of a research group, obtaining financial support; administrative support; providing study materials and writing assistance, technical editing, language editing, and proofreading.

It is researcher’s responsibility to identify which individuals are qualified for authorship or acknowledgment. The corresponding author has primary responsibility for correspondence with the journal. He ensures that all journal’s administrative requirements are properly completed and reported. The corresponding author should be available to cooperate with any requests from the journal during the review process and after publication to respond to critiques