APWSHM-2018 Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

APWSHM-2018 is fully committed to the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct. (For more information, please visit COPE's website: https://publicationethics.org/). It is expected of authors, reviewers and editors that they follow the best-practice guidelines on ethical behaviour against publication malpractices.

A selection of key points is included below, but you should always refer to full details contained therein the website.

Duties of Authors

1. Publication guidelines: Authors must follow the submission guidelines of the conference.
2. Originality, Plagiarism and Acknowledgement: Authors must ensure that the work they are submitting as theirs is entirely original. Authors must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere. Authors will appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another´s paper as the author´s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another´s paper (without attribution), to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable.
3. Multiple Submissions: Authors must certify that the manuscript is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal constitutes unethical publishing behavior. The copyright remains with the authors (CC-BY), thus they can decide about eventual republication of their text. The primary reference must be cited in the secondary publication.
4. Authorship of the Paper: All authors mentioned in the paper must have significantly contributed to the research. The corresponding author submitting the manuscript to the conference should ensure that all contributing co- authors and no uninvolved person(s) are included in the author list.
5. Conflict of Interest: Authors must notify the editors of any conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the manuscript.
6. Fundamental Errors: Authors are obliged to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes at any point in time if the author(s) discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in submitted manuscript.

Duties of Editors

1. Publication Decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding on accepting, rejecting or requesting modifications to the manuscript. In some instances, the editors may require multiple rounds of reviews and modifications. The editors communicate review result in a timely fashion. The editor reserves the right to edit, clarify or shorten the manuscript as deemed necessary.
2. Fair Review: The editor must ensure that each manuscript submitted to APWSHM-2018 is reviewed for its intellectual content without regard to the author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy. The decisions will be based on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and relevance to the conference’s scope.
3. Confidentiality: The editor and editorial staff must ensure that information regarding manuscripts submitted by the authors is kept confidential.
4. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: The editor and members of the editorial board of this conference shall not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript for his/her own research without the author’s explicit written consent.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Confidentiality: Reviewers must keep all manuscripts received confidential.
2. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers must ensure that authors have cited all relevant published work referred to in the paper in the endnotes and bibliography. Reviewers will bring to the editor’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any other published paper they are aware of.
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate.
4. Supporting Argument: Reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
5. Conflicts of Interest: 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 associated with the paper(s).
6. Promptness: In the event that a reviewer feels it is not possible for him/her to complete review of manuscript within the stipulated time he/she should notify the editor in a timely manner and withdraw from the review process.