Foundational Principles of Publication Ethics
At Confmeets Publishing, the integrity of the scholarly discourse is
paramount. We uphold the highest ethical standards, which form the
bedrock of trust among authors, reviewers, editors, and readers. Our
policies are designed to ensure that every published work contributes
authentically and responsibly to the advancement of knowledge.
Authorial Responsibilities: Upholding the Genesis of
Scholarship
Authors are the cornerstone of the academic enterprise and bear the
primary responsibility for the veracity and originality of their
submissions.
- Provenance and Exclusivity of Submission: Manuscripts must be the
authors' own seminal work, free from prior dissemination in any
citable form. We explicitly prohibit the practice of "simultaneous
submission," which constitutes an ethical breach by unfairly engaging
the resources of multiple publishers and undermining the integrity of
the peer-review ecosystem. Authors must attest that their work is not
under consideration, in press, or published elsewhere in any language
at the time of submission to a Confmeets journal.
- Data Fidelity, Stewardship, and Open Science Principles: Authors
are required to present a veracious account of their research process
and findings. The dataset underlying the conclusions must be
meticulously recorded and retained for a minimum of ten years
post-publication to facilitate replicability and scrutiny. Confmeets
strongly encourages, and in some cases mandates, the deposition of
data in recognized, FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable,
Reusable) compliant repositories to foster transparency and
collaborative science.
- Multifaceted Attribution and Financial Transparency: Proper
acknowledgment extends beyond traditional citations. Authors must
credit unpublished works, personal communications, and AI-assisted
tools used in the preparation of the manuscript. A dedicated
"Acknowledgments" section is mandatory to recognize non-author
contributors, such as data curators, statistical consultants, and
providers of materials. All sources of funding, including grant
numbers and the funders' role in the study design, analysis, or
reporting, must be disclosed in full.
- Dynamic Conflict of Interest Management: A conflict of interest
exists when an author's external commitments could be reasonably
perceived as unduly influencing their objectivity. Our disclosure form
requires a comprehensive declaration of all financial (e.g., equity
holdings, patents, consultancies) and non-financial interests (e.g.,
familial relationships, academic rivalries, deeply held beliefs) that
might present a conflict. This statement is published as an unmissable
part of the article.
- Ethical Safeguards for Sentient Beings: Research involving human
participants must include a statement confirming approval by an
accredited ethics review board and the procurement of informed
consent, which for vulnerable groups includes additional safeguards.
For animal subjects, authors must provide the IACUC (or equivalent)
approval number and attest to strict adherence to the 3Rs principles
(Replacement, Reduction, Refinement) and internationally recognized
guidelines like the ARRIVE guidelines.
Reviewer Responsibilities: The Guardians of Rigor
Peer reviewers are vital partners in maintaining the quality and
credibility of our publications.
- Constructive, Evidence-Based, and Timely Critique: Reviews must be
objective, focusing on the work's conceptual soundness,
methodological robustness, and interpretive logic. Critique should be
directed at the content, not the author, and must be substantiated
with specific, actionable feedback. Reviewers are expected to honor
their commitment to the agreed-upon deadline to ensure the timely
dissemination of science.
- Sacrosanct Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Protection:
The manuscript under review is a privileged communication. Reviewers
must not disseminate, discuss, or exploit the unpublished work in any
form. This includes a prohibition on using the ideas, data, or text
for their own research, grant applications, or personal gain without
the author's explicit, written permission.
- Proactive Recusal and Transparency: Reviewers are obligated to
conduct a self-assessment for any potential competing interests before
accepting a review invitation. Grounds for recusal include, but are
not limited to, a current or recent (within the past 48 months)
collaborative relationship, direct mentorship, financial ties, or a
history of substantive intellectual disagreement with the authors.
- Vigilance for Scholarly Integrity Overlaps: Reviewers serve as the
first line of defense against plagiarism and redundant publication.
They are tasked with alerting the editor to any substantial similarity
between the submitted manuscript and other published or unpublished
works they are aware of. They may also note the omission of key
citations relevant to the field, ensuring the work is properly
contextualized.
Editorial Stewardship: Curating the Scholarly Record
Editors at Confmeets are entrusted with the stewardship of the
journal's academic standards and the fairness of its processes.
- Meritocratic Editorial Decision-Making: The decision to accept or
reject a manuscript is based solely on its intellectual merit:
originality, significance, methodological soundness, and alignment
with the journal's scope. Editors rigorously guard against bias
related to the authors' nationality, gender, institutional
affiliation, or any other characteristic irrelevant to scholarly
quality.
- Orchestration of a Robust Peer-Review Process: Editors are
responsible for constructing a fair, impartial, and efficient review
pipeline. This involves the meticulous selection of reviewers with
appropriate expertise, monitoring the quality and tone of reviews,
ensuring anonymity where applicable, and making final judgments based
on the synthesized recommendations.
- Proactive Ethical Leadership and Due Process: Editors have a duty
to investigate any allegations of ethical misconduct. This process is
guided by COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) flowcharts, ensuring
a thorough, fair, and transparent investigation for all parties
involved, from initial assessment to final adjudication.
- Absolute Recusal in Conflict Scenarios: Editors and editorial
staff must completely recuse themselves from handling manuscripts
where they have a competing interest, including those from close
colleagues, collaborators, students, or institutions with which they
have a financial relationship. An alternative editor is assigned to
guarantee impartiality.
