xCoAx is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and to maintaining integrity and good practices in academic publishing.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is expected of Authors, Editors, Reviewers and Publisher.
The following guidelines are based on Elsevier recommendations and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors available at publicationethics.org.
1.1. Publication decisions
The editors of xCoAx are ultimately responsible for accepting or rejecting a manuscript and deciding which of the articles submitted to the conference should be published in the Conference Proceedings. Editorial decisions may be guided by the policies of the editorial board, or justified by legal motives relating to plagiarism, copyright or ethics infringement.
1.2. Peer Review
Editors shall ensure that the peer review process is fair, unbiased, and timely. Submissions to xCoAx must typically be reviewed by at least two reviewers, and where necessary the editors should seek additional opinions. The editors shall review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.
1.3. Fair Review
No type of positive or negative discrimination shall interfere with the Editors’ responsibilities towards a submitted or published manuscript.
The editors should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
The editors must protect the confidentiality of all unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript and of all communications with reviewers, unless otherwise agreed with the relevant authors and reviewers.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage.
1.5. Competing Interests
Any potential editorial conflicts of interest should be declared by the editors and updated when new conflicts arise. Editors must not be involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves. Any such submission must be subject to peer review and handled independently of the relevant author/editor.
Errors or ethical issues regarding content published in the xCoAx Conference Proceedings may be brought to the Editors’ attention by Authors, Reviewers or by the readers, regardless of their publication date. Errors or issues detected after publishing may lead to the publishing of corrections, retractions and/or responses.
2.1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Reviewers should support the editors in making editorial decisions, as well as, assist the author in improving the manuscript, throughout the editorial process.
Reviewers must notify the editors whenever they feel unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or know that its prompt review will be impossible, so that the submission could be assigned to another referee for evaluation.
Information contained in submitted manuscripts received for review must be kept confidential. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper, except if encouraged by the editor, nor use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript without the express written consent of the author.
2.4. Standards of Objectivity
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Referees should express their views clearly and address points of improvement with supporting arguments, and be aware of any personal bias they may have when reviewing a paper.
2.5. Alertness to Ethical Issues
Reviewers should be alert to potential ethical issues and bring these to the attention of the editors, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and other published papers. Reviewers must ensure that ideas or arguments previously reported in other sources and are accompanied by the respective citation.
2.6. Competing Interests
Reviewers should consult the Editors before agreeing to review a paper where they have potential conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors or entities connected to the papers.