The ATCM Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
The Asian Technology Conference in Mathematics (ATCM: http://atcm.mathandtech.org) , managed by the publishing company, Mathematics and Technology, LLC (http://mathandtech.org) publishes its peer reviewed conference proceedings both in printed and electronic formats. The Electronic Proceedings each year are open access, shortly after each ATCM conference at the section of Electronic Proceedings under ATCM website. The publication statement is based mostly on the guidelines and standards developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The relevant duties and expectations of authors, reviewers, and editors of the journal are set out below. These guidelines are fully consistent with the COPE Principles of Transparency and Best Practice Guidelines and the COPE Code of Conduct. More details can be found here: https://publicationethics.org
We encourage the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractices. The Mathematics and Technology, LLC (http://mathandtech.org) as a publisher, takes its duties of guardianship over all stages of publishing extremely seriously and we recognize our ethical and other responsibilities.
Notes to peer reviewers
Contribution to editorial decisions
Peer reviewers (or simply reviewers) consist editors, most members of international program committee (IPC), and some invited external reviewers. They will assist the editors in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication. Authors who wish to contribute to publications have an obligation to do a fair share of reviewing. Peer reviewers are advised to comment on a submission regarding the followings:
- Unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects (including animals), inappropriate data manipulation and presentation).
- The originality of submissions and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review, within two months, will be impossible should notify the EIC and excuse himself from the reviewing process.
Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Standards of objectivity
Standards of objectivity Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Acknowledgement of sources
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Duration of appointment
The editors will monitor the performance of peer reviewers and taking steps to ensure this if it is of high standard. The editors will consult with members IPC to maintain a database of suitable peer reviewers and updating this on the basis of a reviewer's performance. The duration for a reviewer's appointment is three year and is renewable based on the performance.
Suspected reviewer misconduct
In case there is suspected reviewer's misconduct, the ATCM editorial board will follow the COPE flowcharts ( https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf) to conduct further investigation.
Notes for IPC members
IPC members' responsibility and duties
The members of the international program committee (IPC) are updated at the ATCM website (http://atcm.mathandtech.org/ipc.htm) regularly. It consists of two co-chairs for the IPC and members of the IPC. The followings are expected from all members of the international program committee:
- Acting as ambassadors for ATCM
- Supporting and promoting ATCM
- Seeking out the best authors and best work and actively encouraging submissions to ATCM
- Act as a peer reviewers in reviewing full papers submissions to ATCM
- Accepting the invitation for delivering an invited talk in their specialist area
In addition, the aim of ATCM Proceedings is to publish quality articles in the areas of mathematics and technology. The Electronic Proceedings (EP) is an open access and a free publication so there is no conflict of interests financially between the publisher and the members in the International Program Committee.
Members of peer reviewers
The peer reviewers for ATCM publications consist of editors and all members of IPC. In addition, ATCM will select and include interested researchers to be in the team of peer reviewers.
The editors should be responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the Proceedings should be published. The publication decision will be based on the validation of the work if it fits the Topics and Interest of ATCM (posted at http://atcm.mathandtech.org), and its importance to researchers and readers. The IPC members should also consider the legal requirements such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other members of reviewers in making this decision.
The peer reviewers 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.
Peer review procedure
All of Proceedings content should be subjected to peer-review. Articles submitted for possible publication are subjected to a double-blind, peer review process. All articles will be uploaded at an online reviewing system, currently at the Conference Review System of http://conferencereview.com. (We will announce if we switch to a different online reviewing system.) Articles then are assigned to two reviewers, in the field of the paper. Reviewers of a paper are unknown to each other. Reviewers are asked to categorize the paper as (a) publishable subject to minor revision, (b) major revision and a second review is needed, or (c) not publishable. Reviewers’ evaluations will include a detailed recommendation of what to do with the manuscript. Reviewers’ comments are sent to editors for the final evaluations of the recommendations by the reviewers. The editors will then make the final decision if the paper is publishable and will send the recommendation to the author with reviewers’ comments in their entirety to authors unless they contain offensive or libelous remarks.
The editors should be ready to justify any important deviation from the described process. In case a submission receives one positive and one negative comments, a third review will be conducted until it is clear to determine if the paper is publishable or not.
The Mathematics and Technology, LLC will ensure digital preservation of access to the journal content by the Czech National Library within its WebArchive if and when ATCM ceases to operate.
Any reviewer must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, external reviewers, and the publisher. Reviewers will ensure that material submitted remains confidential while it is under review.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Any unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript should not be used in a reviewer's own research without obtaining an explicit written consent from the author. Information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should recuse themselves by informing a co-chair of IPC that the manuscripts, in which they are reviewing, might have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or (possibly) institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers should require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections if competing interests are revealed after publication.
Dealing with unethical behavior
In case of an unethical behavior is noticed, the co-chair of IPC will follow the COPE flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf) to conduct further investigation. Procedures for dealing with unethical behavior may be identified and brought to the attention of a co-chair and publisher at any time, by anyone. Whoever informs the co-chair or publisher of such conduct should provide sufficient information and evidence in order for an investigation to be initiated. All allegations should be taken seriously and treated in the same way, until a successful decision or conclusion is reached. Every reported act of unethical publishing behavior must be looked into, even if it is discovered years after publication.
The editors should take reasonably responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper, in conjunction with the publisher. Such measures will generally include contacting the author of the manuscript or paper and giving due consideration of the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communications to the relevant institutions and research bodies, depending on the misconduct seriousness. We summarize the following possible action if an unethical behavior is found.
- Minor misconduct might be dealt with without the need to consult more widely. In any event, the author should be given the opportunity to respond to any allegations.
- Serious misconduct might require application of one or more following measures: Informing or educating the author or reviewer where there appears to be a misunderstanding or misapplication of acceptable standards.
- Publication of a formal notice detailing the misconduct.
- A formal letter to the head of the author's or reviewer's department or funding agency.
- Formal retraction or withdrawal of a publication from the journal, in conjunction with informing the head of the author or reviewer's department Imposition of a formal embargo on contributions from an individual for a defined period.
Guides for authors
Publishing submission and acceptance dates for articles
Potential authors may upload their full papers at an online reviewing system, currently at http://conferencereview.com each year, before the deadline by following the submission guidelines posted at the Call for submission page at http://atcm.mathandtech.org/call4submissions.htm. A decision notice (acceptance with minor revision, a major revision and a second review is needed, or a rejection) will be sent out by the editorial board through an email to the author by a mentioned deadline. All accepted papers will be compiled and published in printed format and electronic format that will be available at the ATCM website.
Authors may send a request to a co-chair of IPC that a particular reviewer should not review their submission if sufficient reasons can be provided and justified.
Appeals and complaints
- Appeals to editorial decisions, complaints, failure of processes and complaints about publication ethics: The complaint should in first instance be handled by a co-chair of IPC. Complaints should be sent to email@example.com
- Complaint about scientific content, e.g. an appeal against rejection: Author may notify a co-chair of IPC to appeal reviewers' decisions. The co-chair may consult with other IPC members to consider the authors' argument, the reviewers' reports and decide whether (a) the decision to reject should stand, (b) Another independent opinion is needed or (c) The appeal should be considered. The complainant will be informed of the decision with an explanation when appropriate. Decisions on appeals are final and new submissions take priority over appeals.
- Complaint about processes or time taken to review: The co-chairs of IPC together with selected IPC members will investigate the matter. The complainant will be given appropriate feedback. Feedback is provided to relevant stakeholders to improve processes and procedures.
- Complaint about publication ethics, e.g., researcher's author's, or reviewer's conduct: The co-chairs of IPC shall follow the guidelines published by COPE (https://publicationethics.org/resources). The co-chairs of IPC decide on a course of action and provide feedback to the complainant. If the complainant remains dissatisfied with the handling of their complaint, he or she can submit the complaint to the COPE. More information can be found at this link: https://publicationethics.org/facilitation-and-integrity-subcommittee.
Authors of papers should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional publication articles should also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion works should be clearly identified as such.
Data access and retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data (consistent with the ALPSP-STM Statement on Data and Databases), if practicable, and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
Originality and plagiarism
The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works. Proper acknowledgements to other works must be given (this includes material that is closely copied (near verbatim), summarized and/or paraphrased), quotation marks are used for verbatim copying of material, and permissions are secured for material that is copyrighted. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior. In general, an author should not submit for consideration in another journal a previously published paper.
Acknowledgement of sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, must not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved in these services.
Authorship of the paper
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
Suspected misconduct or disputed authorship
In case of a suspected misconduct or disputed authorship, the members of IPC will follow the COPE flowcharts (https://publicationethics.org/files/Full%20set%20of%20English%20flowcharts_9Nov2016.pdf) to conduct further investigation.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest which should be disclosed include employment, consultancies, honoraria, paid expert testimony, patent applications/registrations, and grants or other funding. Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed at the earliest stage possible. Readers should be informed about who has funded research and on the role of the funders in the research.
Fundamental errors in published works
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author┤s obligation to promptly notify the journal EIC or publisher and cooperate with the assigned editor to retract or correct the paper. If the EIC or the publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, it is the obligation of the author to promptly retract or correct the paper or provide evidence to the EIC of the correctness of the original paper.
If you have any suggestions to improve the content of this document, please send those to firstname.lastname@example.org and include Publishing Ethics Guide in the subject line.