Guidelines and Ethics

Revision Guidelines

CHECK OUT REVISION GUIDELINES

Revision Guidelines

Re-submission Guidelines

Author Guidelines

• An author’s primary responsibility is to present an accurate account of the paper, together with an objective discussion of its significance.
• Submitted papers shall contain detail and reference to sources of information sufficient to permit peers to verify its accuracy.
• Authors shall cite and give appropriate acknowledgement to those publications influential in determining the nature of the paper sufficient to guide the reader to earlier work essential to an understanding of the present paper.
• Submitted papers shall not contain plagiarized material or falsified research data. Plagiarism is the use or presentation of the ideas or words of another person from an existing source without appropriate acknowledgment to that source. Any similar misappropriation of intellectual property, which may include data or interpretation, is also considered as plagiarism.
• Scholarly criticism of a published work may be justified, but personal criticism shall be considered inappropriate.
• To protect the integrity of authorship, only persons who have significantly contributed to the papers and their preparation shall be listed as co-authors. The corresponding authors attest to the fact that they have seen the final version of the papers and have agreed to their submission for publication.
• It is inappropriate to submit papers with an obvious commercial intent.
• Authors should make no changes to the papers after they have been accepted. If there is a compelling reason for any changes, they must inform the conference’ scientific committee. Only the scientific committee has the authority to approve changes.
• Authors should reveal to the conference’ scientific committee any potential conflict of interest, e.g., a consulting or financial interest in a company that might be affected by publication of the results contained in a paper. They should ensure that no contractual relations or proprietary considerations exist that would affect the publication of information in a submitted paper.

Review Guidelines

• Because qualified paper review is essential to the publication process, all reviewers have a responsibility to do their fair share of reviews.
• If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the paper submitted, the reviewer shall return the paper promptly to the chairperson of the conference’ scientific committee.
• A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a paper on its own merit and shall respect the intellectual independence of the author(s).
• A reviewer shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If a paper submitted for review presents a potential conflict of interest or the reviewer has a personal bias, the reviewer shall return the paper promptly without review, and advise the chairperson of the conference’ scientific committee.
• A reviewer should not evaluate a paper authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the paper.
• A reviewer should treat a paper sent for review as a confidential document.
• Reviewers shall explain and support their judgments adequately so that editors may understand the basis of their comments. Negative judgments, in particular, should receive a clear, complete, and cogent explanation from the reviewer.
• A reviewer shall call any substantial similarity between the paper under consideration and any published work or any work submitted concurrently to another conference/publication to the attention of the conference’ scientific committee.
• Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted paper are confidential and shall not be used in the research of a reviewer or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author and with appropriate acknowledgement.
• If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a paper contains plagiarized material or falsified data, or evidence of simultaneous submission, the reviewer shall notify the conference’ scientific committee, who will determine the final disposition of the matter.

Publication Ethics

• The primary responsibility of the conference organizer is to ensure an efficient, fair, and timely review process of paper publication, and to establish and maintain high standards of technical and professional quality. Criteria of quality are: originality; clarity; profundity; and relevance to the conference’ theme and subthemes.
• The conference organizer shall give unbiased consideration to all papers, judging each on its merits without regard to race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, seniority, citizenship, professional association, institutional affiliation, professional association, or political orientation of the author(s).
• The sole responsibility for acceptance or rejection of a paper rests with the conference organizer. The organizer shall seek advice from reviewers, who are chosen for their expertise and good judgment, to referee the quality and reliability of papers.
• The conference organizer shall disclose no information about a paper under consideration to anyone other than those from whom professional advice regarding the publication is sought.
• Any member of the conference’s organizing committee who authors or co-authors a paper submitted for consideration in the conference publication with which that member is affiliated, shall not review that paper.
• The conference organizer should respect the intellectual independence of authors.
• Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in submitted papers are confidential and shall not be used in the research of any conference’ organizing committee or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author (s) and with appropriate acknowledgment.
• Conference’ organizing committee should be alert to possible cases of plagiarism, duplication of previous published work, falsified data, misappropriation of intellectual property, duplicate submission of papers, inappropriate acknowledgment, or incorrect co-author listing.