Conferences

PUBLICATION ETHICS AND PUBLICATION MALPRACTICE STATEMENT

Editors, Editorial Staff and Scientific Committee Obligations

Fair Initial Evaluation and Editorial Independence

Editors, the members of the editorial staff and the scientific committee shall evaluate all abstracts and, if accepted on this level, submitted manuscripts will be evaluated based on their alignment with the instructions to authors, presented in the Full Paper Template and Early-Stage Research – Template, both available in the Call for papers section (https://www.ipma-research-conference.world). After this initial evaluation, all submitted manuscripts will undergo a double-blind review process. According to the review results, the Scientific Committee Chair decides whether the manuscript status will be accepted or rejected. The authors are then informed about the manuscript’s status and provided with feedback so that the authors of the accepted manuscripts can upload the final version of the paper. Evaluation will be conducted without any discrimination regarding the authors’ demographics; such are: race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political views, or other. Decisions made at the Editorial level are made independently of any potential influence from sponsors, policymakers, or other external parties. All decisions will also be based on active legal standards concerning copyright regulations, plagiarism check and artificial intelligence (AI) misuse.

Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

Members of the editorial staff shall withdraw from handling manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or related institutions. In such cases, another qualified member of the editorial staff will be assigned to handle the submission. Privileged information or ideas obtained through the review process must remain confidential and must not be exploited for personal advantage.

The editors and members of the editorial staff are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials. No information about a manuscript shall be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, potential and assigned reviewers or the publisher, as appropriate. In case that submitted manuscripts are not accepted for publication, none of the ideas, results, and concepts contained in the manuscripts must not be used by the editorial staff members for their own research without the authors’ explicit written consent.

Publication Decisions

All submitted manuscripts that will be under consideration for publication are subject to double blind peer review by at least two independent experts. Accordingly, the members of the editorial staff have to ensure that the manuscripts are properly anonymized before proceeding with the refereeing procedure. The Editors hold the final responsibility for deciding which manuscripts are to be published, based on their scholarly contribution, reviewers’ evaluations, and adherence to ethical and legal standards. In reaching the final publication decisions, the Editors may consult with other members of the editorial staff and/or reviewers.

Ethical Concerns and Investigations

Editors, supported by the editorial staff, and in cooperation with the publisher (IPMA), are responsible for addressing any ethical concerns raised about submitted or published works. Every discovered or reported act of unethical publishing behavior of the submitting authors will be thoroughly investigated, regardless of the time elapsed since publication. When ethical misconduct is proven, based on the facts gathered during the investigation, appropriate corrective measures will be issued, which may include retraction, publication of a correction, or expression of concern. Corrective measures will be clearly indicated on the conference website, in the same section with information regarding the official proceedings where the manuscript was initially published.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities/or Obligations

Contribution to Editorial Process

Peer review is an integral element of academic communication, and all qualified researchers, from the list of Scientific Committee and delegated by the Conference Chairs and the publisher (IPMA), are expected to contribute to this process conscientiously and impartially. Peer review assists editors in making informed editorial decisions and provides constructive feedback to authors to improve the quality of their manuscripts.

Promptness, Communication and Confidentiality

Reviewers who consider that the manuscript assigned for their review is outside their research scope and/or consider themselves unqualified to evaluate a manuscript, or who recognize that a timely review cannot be provided, should immediately inform the editorial staff and withdraw from the review process to allow alternative reviewers to be appointed.

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential documents by the reviewers. They may not be shown to or discussed with others without prior authorization from the editorial staff. This obligation also applies to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.

Objectivity

Reviews must be conducted objectively. During the double-blind review process, each full paper is evaluated by two reviewers that give scores from 0-5 for the following elements: Importance/quality of topic and results (10%); Relevance for the conference (10%); Organization and presentation quality (10%); Thematic relevance to the conference topics (10%); English language and writing quality (10%); and Overall recommendation (50%), as described in the Editorial Policy, available at: https://publications.ipma.world/conference . In addition, the reviewers provide written comments/feedback visible to the authors and internal comments visible to the Scientific Committee. Reviewers should express their evaluations clearly and support their comments with sound arguments. The reviewers’ comments should be directed toward the manuscripts and not towards the authors, e.g. personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate and should be omitted.

Avoiding Artificial Intelligence Misuse in the Reviewing Process

The resulting review report of the assigned manuscript should be the result of the Reviewers’ own efforts. No generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools should be used by the reviewers in their preparation and writing.

Acknowledgement of Sources

Any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other works known to the reviewer should be reported to the editor. Reviewers should express their opinion if eventual misuse of artificial intelligence is noticed in the manuscript. Reviewers should also indicate if they identified relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.

Editorial Team Control

Before informing the authors of the results of the review process, Editorial staff will check the content and the appropriateness of the obtained referees’ report. Potential irregularities in the referees’ report will be communicated with the reviewers and eliminated during this process, before it’s sent to the authors.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may bias their evaluation—whether arising from collaborative, financial, or other relationships with any of the authors or their institutions—and should decline the review if such conflicts exist. Reviewers are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of all submitted materials. In case submitted manuscripts are not accepted for publication, none of the ideas, results, and concepts contained in the manuscripts must not be used by the reviewers for their own research without the authors’ explicit written consent.

Authors’ Responsibilities/or Obligations

Declaration of Authorship

Authorship should be restricted to individuals who have made significant intellectual contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study, have participated in drafting, writing or revising the manuscript, and have approved the final version. Individuals who contributed to the work but do not meet authorship criteria should be acknowledged, with their prior consent, in the “Acknowledgements” section. The corresponding author bears responsibility for ensuring that all co-authors meet these criteria and approve the submitted manuscript.

Reporting Standards and Accuracy

Authors of original research papers must provide an accurate, objective, and complete presentation of the work performed, accompanied by a balanced discussion of obtained results and elaboration of its significance. Data should be represented truthfully, and the manuscript should include sufficient details and references to enable replication. Fabrication or falsification of data constitutes unethical behavior and is unacceptable.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Acknowledgement

Authors must submit only original work and ensure that all sources are appropriately acknowledged and cited. Plagiarism and self-plagiarism in any form, ranging from copying one’s own or other authors’ work to paraphrasing substantial parts of it without proper citation, is unethical and intolerable. All publications that have significantly influenced the research should be accurately acknowledged. Authors must properly credit the work of others and obtain written permission to cite unpublished or private information. Information obtained through confidential services, such as consultancy, field work, peer review or grant evaluation, must not be used without explicit authorization.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not submit manuscripts describing essentially the same research to more than one conference and/or journal. Concurrent submission constitutes unethical publishing behavior. Submitting significantly revised or extended versions of previously published work is permissible only if the new submission provides substantial added value (e.g., new data, case studies, or theoretical development), is with less than (10 percent similarity with the original publication) and properly cites the original publication. Revised or extended versions of an author’s previously published work may be accepted with up to 30 percent similarity, provided that the new submission offers significant added value (such as new data, case studies, or theoretical development) and is properly referenced. If the manuscript is accepted for presentation at the conference, authors should allow and support its publication in the conference proceedings, without considering its transfer to another publisher, unless obtaining written consent from the Scientific Committee. In case the authors do not intend to publish the accepted manuscript in the conference proceedings, they should submit their contribution to the Early-Stage Research section.

Avoiding Artificial Intelligence Misuse

Authors should declare in the disclaimer if generative artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-assisted tools were used in writing, data analysis, figure generation, or any other aspect of the manuscript preparation.

Example statement: “In this article, we used [specify AI tool, e.g., ChatGPT, Grammarly, etc.] for the purpose of [briefly state the purpose, e.g., language editing, grammar correction, idea structuring, etc.]. “

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose all financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could be perceived to influence the research results or their interpretation. Such disclosures should include funding sources, institutional affiliations, consultancies, or other relevant relationships. All financial support for the research must be properly acknowledged, including grant numbers or reference details where applicable.

Participation in Peer Review

Authors are obliged to cooperate fully with the editorial process, respond promptly to requests for revisions or clarifications, and submit corrected versions within the specified timeframe. Authors should address reviewers’ comments systematically and transparently.

Correction of Errors

When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their published work, they must promptly notify the editorial staff and cooperate in the publication of a correction or eventual retraction. If the editorial staff notices potential error, or become aware of it from a third party, authors – when asked, are required to provide justifying evidence or take corrective action without delay.