Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

The IAARC organization and ISARC conference organizers are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and take all possible measure against any publication malpractices. Our Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is inspired by a number of sources, such as COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (see https://publicationethics.org/) and borrows from Elsevier policies. Other existing statements (e.g. META) have also influenced the development of this statement.

All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the proceedings if malpractice is discovered at any time even after the publication. Authors are asked to certify that they have fulfilled their duties as specified in this Statement. ISARC conferences check all papers in a single-blind peer review process. In this process, ISARC conference organizers may decide to check for plagiarism and research fabrication (making up research data); falsification (manipulation of existing research data, tables, or images) and improper use of humans or animals in research. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing. The ISARC Program Chair and Scientific Committee and the IAARC organization reserve the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Reviewers, Editors and the Publisher.

Duties of Authors

Originality and Acknowledgements

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.

Authors should ensure that their work is original, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one conference constitutes unethical publishing behavior. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication. Furthermore, the corresponding author must sign the IAARC Copyright Transfer Agreement form for their paper.

All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed, including the grant number or other reference number if any.

Authorship of the manuscript

Persons who meet the following authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content:

(i) Made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; and
(ii) Drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and
(iii) Have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication.

Persons who made substantial contributions to the work reported in the manuscript (such as technical help, writing and editing assistance, general support) but who do not meet the criteria for authorship must not be listed as an author, but should be acknowledged in the “Acknowledgements” section after their written permission to be named as been obtained.

The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate co-authors are included in the list of authors and verify that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should—at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the manuscript)—disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the manuscript.

Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include: financial ones such as honoraria, educational grants or other funding, participation in speakers’ bureaus, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest, and paid expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements; as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs in the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript.

Hazards and human or animal subjects

If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the authors must clearly identify these in the manuscript. If the work involves the use of animals or human participants, the authors should ensure that all procedures were performed in compliance with relevant laws and institutional guidelines and that the appropriate institutional committee(s) has approved them; the manuscript should contain a statement to this effect. Authors should also include a statement in the manuscript that informed consent was obtained for experimentation with human participants. The privacy rights of human participants must always be observed.

Engagement in the review process

The corresponding author, and by extension all authors, must cooperate fully with the Editor by responding promptly to editors’ requests for clarifications. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, and in a timely manner, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the conference by the deadline given.

Contribution to peer review

IAARC shares the view that anybody or institution that wish to contribute to the scientific process also have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. Authors should thus expect that they may be requested to participate in the peer review process.

Duties of Reviewers (ISARC Scientific Committee)

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor.

Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editors (ISARC Program Chair and Track Chairs) and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.

Duties of the Editors (ISARC Program Chair and Track Chairs)

Editors, led by the ISARC Program Chair, evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit (importance, originality, clarity and study’s validity) and its relevance to the conference’s scope, without regard to the authors’ race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, citizenship, religious belief, political philosophy or institutional affiliation. Decisions to edit and publish are not determined by the policies of governments or any other agencies outside of the editors. The editors have full authority over the entire editorial content of the conference.

Confidentiality and conflicts of interest

Editors and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate. Privileged information or ideas obtained by editors as a result of handling the manuscript will be kept confidential and not used for their personal advantage.
Editors will recuse themselves from considering manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers. Instead, they will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript.

Publication decisions

The editors ensure that all submitted manuscripts being considered for publication undergo peer-review by at least two reviewers who are expert in the field. The ISARC Program Chair and Track Chairs is responsible for deciding which of the manuscripts submitted to the conference will be published, based on the validation of the work in question, its importance to researchers and readers, the reviewers’ comments, and such legal requirements as are currently in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. The Program Chair may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
Involvement and cooperation in investigations

Editors (in conjunction with the Publisher IAARC) will take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised with regard to a submitted manuscript or published paper. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior will be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication. ISARC Program Chairs, in collaboration with IAARC, will follow the COPE Flowcharts when dealing with cases of suspected misconduct. If, on investigation, the ethical concern is well-founded, a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other note as may be relevant, will be published in the conference proceedings online.

Duties of the Publisher (IAARC)

Handling of unethical publishing behavior

In cases of alleged or proven scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the Publisher, IAARC, in close collaboration with the Editors, led by the ISARC Program Chair, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and to amend the article in question. This includes the prompt publication of an erratum, clarification or, in the most severe case, the retraction of the affected work. The Publisher, together with the Editors, shall take reasonable steps to identify and prevent the publication of papers where research misconduct has occurred, and under no circumstances encourage such misconduct or knowingly allow such misconduct to take place.

Access to ISARC content

The Publisher, IAARC, is committed to the permanent availability and preservation of scholarly research and ensures free accessibility by maintaining our own digital archive.