Statement on Publication Ethics and Malpractice
for the 16th European-African Regional Conference of the ISTVS
A. Publication and authorship
All manuscripts submitted to 16th European-African Regional Conference of the ISTVS (hereinafter the Conference) are subjected to strict peer-review process by at least two independent reviewers that are experts in the field of the submitted paper. Acceptance is based on scientific significance, originality, and clarity.
The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, soundness, significance, originality, readability, and language.
Based on the reviewers’ comments, a decision (acceptable in the present form; acceptable with revision; reject) is made by the members of the Conference Scientific Committee in charge of the review process. At the end of the review process, the Conference Chair makes the final decision.
If authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a manuscript, there is no promise made or commitment given that the revised manuscript will be accepted.
Rejected manuscripts will not be re-evaluated.
Only manuscripts that are not tainted by libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism are eligible to be accepted.
B. Authors’ responsibilities
Authors must ensure that the manuscript is entirely their original work, that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere, and that the manuscript is not currently being under consideration for publication elsewhere.
Authors must participate in the peer review process.
If at any point in time the authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in the submitted manuscript, they are obliged to report the error or inaccuracy to the editor immediately.
Every author listed in the manuscript must make a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. Authors must also ensure that all the authors have seen and agreed to the submitted manuscript and their inclusion as co-authors.
Authors must provide a proper description of the sources and methods used to obtain and analyze data.
Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest.
Authors must ensure that the manuscript has been proofread and corrected for clarity, grammar, and spelling of the text.
C. Reviewers' responsibilities
Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of peer review and not reveal any details of a manuscript during or after the peer-review process.
Reviewers should be objective and constructive, refraining from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libelous or derogatory personal comments.
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on its suitability for the conference and its originality. Reviewers should also evaluate whether the manuscript has clear objectives, sound methods, and clear and sufficient results supporting the conclusions with appropriate figures, tables, and references.
Reviewers should report their review results clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should notify the authors about any published work they deem relevant that has not been cited in the paper.
Reviewers should bring the editor’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Reviewers should not review 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.
D. Editors’ responsibilities
Editors are held accountable and should take responsibility for everything they allow to be published.
Editors must base their decisions solely on the papers’ importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the conference’s scope, without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political orientation of the authors.
Editors must not share information about the manuscripts, including whether they have been received and are under review, their content and status in the review process, any criticism by reviewers, and their ultimate fate, to anyone other than the authors and reviewers. Editors must also make clear that reviewers should keep manuscripts, associated material, and the information they contain strictly confidential.
Editors must preserve the anonymity of the reviewers.
Editors must make sure that the funding source of the research is should be declared and published, and that the role of the funding source in the conception, conduct, analysis, and reporting of the research is stated and published.
Editors must not allow any conflicts of interest between editorial staff, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members.
Editors must guard the integrity of the publication by issuing corrections and retractions when needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct.
E. Plagiarism
All articles submitted to the Conference must contain exclusively original research. Passing off another’s research as the author’s own, copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper (without attribution), or claiming results from research conducted by others are all considered to be forms of plagiarism. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
F. Duplicate submission
Authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal or conference. Submission of a manuscript concurrently to more than one journal or conference constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
G. Data fabrication and falsification
Authors should not include spurious data or false research results in the manuscript. Also, manipulation of the research process or the arbitrary alteration or omission of data which leads to the distortion of the contents or the results of the research should not be done.
H. Citation manipulation
Authors should not include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to an author’s given article.
I. Improper author contribution or attribution
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the study in the paper and approved all its claims. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution, including students and laboratory technicians.
J. Redundant publications
The artificial division of study outcomes into multiple articles for the sole purpose of increasing the quantity of publications constitutes redundant publication is unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Multiple papers generated from the same study can be accepted if they focus on different aspects of the study, in a sensible and meaningful way.
K. Rejection of manuscripts
In the case of unwillingness of the authors to cooperate with the Scientific Committee (e.g., refusing to improve the manuscript as requested or not having a proper communication with the Scientific Committee), the manuscript is rejected. A manuscript is rejected also in case of plagiarism, data fabrication, or falsification.
Last updated