Himalayan Journal of Applied Science and Engineering (HiJASE) seeks to promote and disseminate knowledge in the applied science and engineering. HiJASE is an open access, peer-reviewed and refereed international journal published by the School of Engineering (SoE), Faculty of Science and Technology (FoST), Pokhara University (PU), Nepal. The main objective of HiJASE is to provide an intellectual platform for the national and international scholars. HiJASE aims to promote interdisciplinary studies inthe applied science and engineering and become the leading journal in science and engineering.

This journal is committed to publish scholarly research articles, book reviews, case studies and project works that have a high impact on the engineering, applied science, technology, and other related fields. It encourages interested researchers,academicians and professionals working in the above field to share new ideas and perspectives.  The journal publishes research papers in the fields of applied science and engineering such as Environmental Science, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Construction Management, Disaster Management, Structural, Geo technical, Water Resources, Geomagnetic, Electrical and Electronics Engineering,Computer Science and Information Technology, Material Science and related fields of engineering and applied sciences.

Publication Frequency

The HiJASE journal will be published bi-annually covering different fields of engineering and applied sciences. In addition, special issues will be published to cover other important subjects relevant to wide international and multidisciplinary readerships.

 Access Policy

This journal provides immediate open access to its published articles to the greater global exchange of knowledge.

Publisher

School of Engineering,

Faculty of Science and Technology, Pokhara University

Pokhara -30, Kaski, Nepal

Advisory Board

1. Dr. Manish Pokharel, Professor, Department of Computer Science and Engineering, School of Engineering, Kathmandu University, Nepal
2. Dr. Masahiro Ouchi, Professor, Kochi University of Technology, Japan
3. Dr. Padma Bahadur Shahi, Technical Advisor, Department of Transportation Management, Nepal
4. Dr. Ram Kumar Sharma, Professor, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
5. Dr. Tek Raj Gyawali, Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
6. Dr. Ved Prasad Kafle, Research Manager, National Institute of Information and Communications Technology, Japan
7. Dr. Vishnu Prasad Pandey, Researcher, International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Nepal

Editorial Board

Editor-in-Chief

Dr. Binaya Kumar Mishra, Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal

Managing Editor

Dr. Madhu Sudan Kayastha, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal

Editors

1. Dr. Basanta Kumar Gautam, Associate Professor, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
2. Dr. Bin He, Director, Guangdong Institute of Eco-Environmental Science & Technology, Guangdong Academy of Sciences, China
3. Dr. Hari Krishna Shrestha, Professor, Nepal Engineering College, Pokhara University, Nepal
4. Dr. Hemchandra Chaulagain, Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
5. Dr. Himalal Gautam, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
6. Dr. Indra Prasad Acharya, Associate Professor, Institute of Engineering, Tribhuvan University, Nepal
7. Dr. Kishan Datta Bhatta, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Far-Western University, Nepal
8. Mr. Lalit Bickram Rana, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
9. Dr. Netrananda Sahu, Assistant Professor, School of Economics, University of Delhi, India
10. Dr. Pankaj Kumar, Senior Policy Researcher, Natural Resources and Ecosystems, Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan
11. Dr. Pingping Luo, Professor, School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Chang’an University, China
12. Dr. Prakash Kumar Paudel, Director, Kathmandu Institute of Applied Science, Nepal
13. Dr. Rajib Pokhrel, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
14. Dr. Ripendra Awal, Research Scientist, Cooperative Agriculture Research Center, Prairie View A & M University, USA
15. Mr. Saliya Sampath, Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka
16. Dr. Saroj Chapagain, Researcher, Institute for the Advanced Study of Sustainability, Tokyo, Japan
17. Dr. Shamik Chakraborty, Lecturer, Department of Sustainability Studies, Hosei University, Japan
18. Dr. Sudip Adhikari, Researcher, Chubu University, Japan
19. Dr. Suresh Baral, Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
20. Mr. Udaya Raj Dhungana, Assistant Professor, School of Engineering, Pokhara University, Nepal
21. Dr. Yoshimitsu Nakajima, General Manager, Maeda Corporation, Japan

Peer Review Process

The peer review process is done by the experts in the related field in order to maintain and ensure the high quality for the publication of journal. Decision on acceptance or rejection will be made by journal editors or the journal’s editorial board upon the recommendation of reviewers. Indeed, it is the journal editorial board who is considered to be central to the decision making process.

1. 1. The journal accepts manuscripts through electronic form. Manuscript is submitted through e–mail attachment to the Editor–in–Chief at [email protected].
   2. The Editor-in-Chief and/or Editorial Secretary first evaluates all the submitted manuscripts. Generally, manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the minimum criteria are forwarded to at least two academic and research experts for peer review. If necessary, there will be an option for third review.
   3. The journal will contact national and international experts from other universities, institutions, journals, or organizations to ensure impartiality, transparency, and diversity of the peer review process. The editorial board then matches the referees to the paper according to their area of concentration and expertise whenever possible. The journal employs double blind reviewing where referees remain anonymous to the authors and vice-versa throughout the review process.
   4. The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the referees involved. Usually, these are cases where referee reports contradict each other or where delays of referee reports are unavoidable. To expedite the process, the journal disseminates the manuscripts immediately and set deadlines for the assigned referees. In cases of contradictory referee reports, the editorial board has the final decision whether to accept or reject the manuscript.
   5. Based on the reviewers’ recommendations, the editor makes the final decision based on the several possibilities indicated below.
      1. Full acceptance, with or without minor revision
      2. Conditional acceptance, with major revisions(invite the author to revise their manuscript and address specific concerns before a final decision is made)
      3. Reject, with specific reasons with inclusion of reviewers comments but indicate to the authors that further improvements might justify a resubmission
      4. Reject outright, usually on the grounds of lack of novelty and originality, insufficient theoretical and conceptual advancement, and major technical or interpretational problems of the manuscript.
   6. For conditionally accepted manuscripts, the editor board has full authority to accept or reject of any manuscripts after full revisions. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript is sent to the author.

Author Guidelines

Authors are advised to follow the guidelines in preparing the manuscript before submission.

1. Article should be original in nature and have not been published elsewhere. All manuscripts are subjected to plagiarism check and peer-review to determine originality, validity and significance of the submitted material. Criteria for publication include scientific merit and significance to the field.
2. The language of the manuscript should be English.
3. All manuscripts must be submitted electronically through the e-mail at [email protected]
4. The article should be within 6,000 words. Articles should be in MS Word double-spaced, preferably font size 12, Times New Roman, A4 with 25 mm margins in all sides.(See Appendix A for format of Initial Manuscript submission, Click here: PDF, DOC)
5. Title page: It should be a separate page and include the title of the manuscript, Author’s name and affiliation, abstract and keywords.
   

1. Title:The title should be concise and informative. Try to avoid abbreviations and formulae where possible.
2. Author’s names and affiliations: Name of all authors should be clear in prescribed format (See Appendix A PDF, DOC). The authors’ affiliation should be his/her present working place and should be below author’s name.
3. Corresponding author: Clearly indicate who is willing to handle correspondence at all stages of refereeing and publication, also post-publication. Ensure that telephone/mobile numbers (with country code) are provided in addition to the e-mail address.
4. Abstract: A concise and factual abstract is required (maximum length of 250 words). The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, methodology, the principal results with discussion, major conclusions and its implementation scope. References should be avoided in abstract section.
5. Keywords: Immediately after the abstract, provide a maximum of 6 keywords.

• Subdivision of the article: Divide your article into clearly defined and numbered sections. Sub-sections should be numbered like 1, 1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.3, etc. The abstract is not included in section numbering.
  
• Table and Figures: All the tables and figures of manuscript should be clear in the format provided in Appendix B PDF DOC. Each table and figure should be numbered like Table 1, Fig. 1 and should be referred in text.
  
• Equations: Equations should be prepared using Word’s built-in ‘Equation Editor’ or the full Math Type, avoid using Word’s ‘Insert Symbol’ command. Equation should be numbered sequentially throughout the text (i.e., (1), (2), (3)…)
• The main body of the article should not miss the following sections:

1. Methodology: Explain the specific methods and procedures implemented in the  study.
2.  Result and discussion: Analyses and discuss the outcomes of the research work in comparison (if any) with the previous works.
3. Conclusions: State conclusions precisely without elaboration.
4. Suggestions and recommendations: Make recommendations for research work and give suggestions for further study.
5. Acknowledgements (Optional): Recognize any advisory and financial help, and major assisting works in the paper.
6. References: It is the citation of sources which have been used in the manuscript. It should be in the IEEE format. (See Appendix C for detail PDF, DOC)

10. Declaration on Conflict of Interest
    
11. All manuscripts, which are rejected, will be returned to authors.
    

Code of Conduct for Reviewers

The following set of practices is regarded as the code of conduct for reviewers:

1. All researchers are consider for peer-reviewing of manuscripts as a professional responsibility.
2. When approached to review, the reviewer must agree to review only if he/she has the necessary expertise to assess the manuscript and can be unbiased in his/her assessment. Expertise includes a track record of research publication and knowledge about the current state of research in the area of review.
3. The reviewer must be familiar with the issues related to research ethics, best practices in research, research misconduct and the latest tools and technology to detect plagiarism.
4. The reviewer must disclose any competing interests. Competing interest is particularly relevant in the open review process. However, it might also be relevant in a blind review if the reviewer can identify the author(s) of the article. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, or political in nature.
5. Reviewers must do the review professionally following the guidance for reviewer provided by the journal. If a reviewer feels that he/she does not have enough expertise, he/she should decline to review and inform the editor.
6. Recommendation for the acceptance of the manuscript must be based on the originality of the article and its potentiality to contribute to the existing knowledge in the area of study.
7. Reviewers must make sincere effort to complete the task within the time-frame agreed upon.
8. Reviewers must act responsibly maintaining the confidentiality of the review process, documents, research subjects and authors if known.

Code of Conduct for Editors

The following set of practices is regarded as the core code of conduct for editors:

1. Editors are accountable for everything published in their journals regarding academic responsibility and quality, including authors’ compliance with integrity and ethics.
2. Editors must adhere to journal policies and publication ethics.
3. Editors must ensure that contributors follow the publication ethics.
4. Editors must ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers (including statistical review wherever applicable).
5. Editors must maintain a roster of qualified reviewers or have a mechanism to search for the most suitable reviewer for a particular submission.
6. Editors must provide the reviewer guidance on reviewing, code of conduct for reviewers and best practices, which, among other things, include the disclosure of potential competing interests.
7. Editors must respect requests from authors that an individual should not review their submission if these are well-reasoned and practicable.
8. Editors’ decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the duly conducted peer-review report on paper’s importance, originality, and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the journal.
9. Editors should have a system in place to ensure that peer reviewers’ identities are protected unless they use an open review system, which is declared to authors and reviewers in advance.
10. In cases of disputes regarding misconduct, competing interests, and authorship, editors should follow the Dispute Resolution Flowchart to resolve the issue.
11. Editors should publish relevant competing interests for all contributors and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
12. Editors should regularly review the policies of the journal and make them public through the journal.

School of Engineering, Faculty of Science and Technology,

Pokhara University, Pokhara -30, Kaski, Nepal

Tel.: +977-61504141; Email: [email protected]