Editorial policies

The publication ethics are binding to all parties mentioned in the text below. The Conference Scientific Board takes all steps necessary to prevent from plagiarism or other unethical behaviour. All accepted manuscripts need to meet the standards.

  1. Publication and authorship

The articles must conform to the rules of reports of scientific work. A list of references used and acknowledgment of any financial support is required.
Only original articles are published. Any parts of the proceeding papers published elsewhere need to be fully acknowledged.
See below for more detail.

  1. Authors’ responsibilities

Authors must ensure that they have written an entirely original manuscript. All co-authors of the manuscript must significantly contribute to the reported research. By sending the paper to the editors the corresponding author declares, all authors as well as funding is mentioned and all authors are aware of the paper being submitted.
If authors use previously published materials, they must cite them appropriately. They must present all sources used while working on their manuscripts (list of references, financial support acknowledgment). Where portions of the content overlap with published or submitted content, the authors must acknowledge and cite those sources. They must obtain permission to reproduce any content from other sources (pictorial and other material).
By sending the paper to the editors, the authors declare that the manuscript has not been published elsewhere or is not under consideration or accepted for publication elsewhere.
Authors must notify the Editorial Board if they are aware of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must maintain accurate records of data associated with their submitted manuscript, and to supply or provide access to these data, on reasonable request. They must confirm that all data in the manuscript are real and authentic.
Authors must notify immediately the editors if a significant error in their publication is identified and cooperate with the editor to publish an erratum or addendum or to retract the paper if necessary.

  1. Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers

Reviewers contribute to the decision-making process and assist in improving the quality of the published paper by reviewing the papers objectively, formatively and in a timely manner.
Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of any information supplied by the editor or author and must not retain or copy the manuscript. The review is single blind.
Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited and alert the editor to any published or submitted content that is substantially similar to that under review.
Reviewers should be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (financial, institutional, collaborative or other relationships between the reviewer and author) and alert the editor to these, if necessary withdrawing their services for the manuscript. These items are included in the review form.

  1. Editorial responsibilities

Editors should strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely.
Editors act in a balanced, objective and fair way, without discrimination on grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religious or political beliefs, ethnic or geographical origin of the authors. They must not have any conflict of interest with respect to articles they are responsible for. A paper authored by any of the editors is handled as any other paper and is edited by another member of the editorial team.
Editors have complete responsibility and authority to reject/accept an article on objective ground, that is, on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the remit of the proceedings.
Editors must ensure that all published reports and reviews of research have been reviewed by suitably qualified reviewers.
Editors must adopt and follow reasonable procedures in the event of complaints of an ethical or conflict nature. They must give authors a reasonable opportunity to respond to any complaints. All complaints should be investigated no matter when the original publication was approved. Documentation associated with any such complaints should be retained.
Editors must preserve the anonymity of reviewers.
Editors promote publication of correction or retraction when errors are found. However, the authors are fully responsible for the language quality of their papers and editors or reviewers only suggest changes.

  1. Publishing ethics issues

The Editorial Board ensures that good practice is maintained to the standards outlined above. They guard the content of the proceedings against any plagiarism or fraudulent data.
They strive to maintain the integrity of the academic record.
They are always willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed.

  1. How is unethical behaviour dealt with

Misconduct and unethical behaviour may be identified and brought to the attention of the editor and publisher at any time, by anyone, who is to provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision is reached. Evidence should be gathered, while avoiding spreading any allegations beyond those who need to know.
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. Ethical committee of the publishing faculty will be consulted in serious cases.

  1. 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 behaviour.
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 proceedings, 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 organisation or higher authority for further investigation and action.

  1. Sources of this document

Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors. COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics)