Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

The conference proceedings follow the highest standards of publication ethics, and the programme committee takes all possible steps against any publication misconduct.

Editorial responsibilities

The editors are responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the proceedings should be published. They are responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publications and for safeguarding publishing ethics.

The editors are obliged to:

  • Base their decisions to accept or reject a paper solely on its relevance, significance, originality and clarity. To ensure that the refereeing process is rigorous, fair, and consistent, each paper is sent to a minimum of two reviewers. If a paper receives one positive and one negative review, it is subjected to a third review. If the third review is negative, the paper is rejected. A paper is also rejected if the author refuses to make reviewer-suggested revisions without a reasonable justification for the refusal.
  • Ensure the integrity of the academic record. Inaccurate, misleading or distorted information should be corrected when recognized and clarified promptly and with due prominence. The decision to retract a paper is made when there is evidence that:
    • an author is attempting to pass off another author’s work as their own or replicating a significant part of another author’s work without acknowledging the original author
    • a paper or a significant part of it was published elsewhere without proper cross-referencing
    • a paper’s findings are unreliable, whether due to misconduct (fraudulent data) or honest error (miscalculation)
    • a paper’s findings are a result of unethical research
    • a paper constitutes plagiarism
  • Prevent conflicts of interest influencing their decisions regarding the acceptance or rejection of a paper and to prevent any financial concerns from compromising academic and ethical standards.
  • Maintain confidentiality of the papers submitted for publications during the review process.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of reviewer identity (preserve reviewer anonymity).
  • Ensure that reasonable procedures are adopted for handling complaints concerning ethics or conflicts of interest. All complaints should be investigated, regardless of when the paper was published. The investigation process should be documented and the records retained. If a complaint arises against an author, the author should be given an opportunity to respond to the complaints.

Author responsibilities

All authors submitting their works to the Conference for publication are obliged to:

  • Confirm that the submitted papers are their own contributions.
  • Confirm that the data in the paper is real and authentic and be able to provide access to accurate records of these data upon a reasonable request from the editors.
  • Confirm that their publications have not been copied in whole or in part from the works of other authors. All data from sources other than an author’s current research should be appropriately cited and referenced in the bibliography section of the paper. Any attempt at plagiarism will result in the rejection of the submitted paper.
  • Confirm that their publications have not been copied in whole or in part from their own previous works. Papers already published or under the reviewing process for publication elsewhere will not be accepted. Any parts of a paper submitted to the Conference that overlap with previously published or submitted works should be acknowledged and cited.
  • Promptly notify the editors if a significant error in their paper is identified and provide retractions or corrections of mistakes upon a reasonable request from the editors.
  • Participate in the review process for the Conference to which they are submitting a paper.
  • Reference any projects to which the research presented in the paper submitted to the Conference relates in the acknowledgements section.

Reviewer responsibilities

Each submission is anonymously reviewed by two independent reviewers to ensure the final high standard and quality of each accepted submission. The factors that are considered in this review are relevance, significance, originality, readability, and language.

All reviewers participating in the reviewing process are obliged to:

  • Be objective and constructive in their reviews. If they conclude that some adjustments should be made to the submitted paper, they should be clear and specific in their criticism, avoiding unfair or unjustified negative comments.
  • Agree to review a paper only when possessing the level of expertise in the subject required to carry out the review.
  • Promptly notify the editors about any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, intellectual, political, or religious). If a fair and unbiased review cannot be provided, the reviewer should decline to participate in the reviewing process.
  • Notify the editors in a timely fashion if there are concerns about ethical aspects of the work, possible plagiarism, or fraudulent data. Alert the editors if the content under review is substantially similar to paper(s) already published or under the reviewing process elsewhere.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of the paper under review and review details. Do not involve anyone else in the reviewing process.
  • Submit a review within the established timeframe or contact the editors if a timely review cannot be provided.

You are running an old browser version. We recommend updating your browser to its latest version.

More info