Propositions regarding papers/proceedings
All submitted papers will be peer reviewed by the reviewers drawn from the scientific committee or external reviewers depending on the topic, title and the subject matter of the paper.
Selection of papers which will be presented at the conference day (online) will be based upon quality, originality, and relevance.
Publication of one paper prior requires payment of one registration fee, regardless of the number of authors (is there one author or two/three co-authors).
Proceedings will be indexed with ISSN, ISBN, CIP, Cobiss.SR number and DOI numbers.
The official language of the conference is English.
ERAZ Conference - Instructions for papers
ERAZ Conference - Biography form
Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Annual ERAZ conference is committed to the highest standards of publishing integrity and academic honesty as ensuring ethics in all its publications. The publication of an article in the ERAZ conference publications contributes to growth of knowledge.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: authors, editors, reviewers, and the publisher.
Before submitting an abstract or full paper for review or reviewing a paper please make sure you have read this Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement.
These instructions will ensure we have everything required so your submitted work can move through peer review, production and publication smoothly. Please take the time to read and follow them as closely as possible, as doing so will ensure your paper matches the ethical requirements.
The ethic statements given here are based on Elsevier policy according to Publishing Ethics Resource Kit for publishing ethics and malpractice statement, the Cambridge journals ethical standards, COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors, etc.
Duties of Authors
- Reporting standards
Authors of original research 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 manuscript. The manuscript should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
- Data Access and Retention
Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with the manuscript for editorial review, and should be prepared to provide public access to such data and should in any event be prepared to retain such data for a reasonable time after publication.
- Originality and Plagiarism
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited.
Text Recycling (Self-Plagiarism): Authors should not submit previously published work or reuse parts of their own previous work without appropriate citation. It is acceptable to submit a more developed work including novel contributions in order to present a research or a project at various stages of its evolution. In all cases authors should cite the previous work.
- Using Third-Party Material in your Paper
You must obtain the necessary permission to reuse third-party material in your article. The use of short extracts of text and some other types of material is usually permitted, on a limited basis, for the purposes of criticism and review without securing formal permission. If you wish to include any material in your paper for which you do not hold copyright, and which is not covered by this informal agreement, you will need to obtain written permission from the copyright owner prior to submission.
- Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication
Authors should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publisher concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
- Acknowledgement of Sources
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be provided. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
- 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. In case 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 in the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and have agreed to its submission for publication.
- Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest
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.
- Fundamental errors in published works
When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
Duties of Reviewers
- Contribution to Editorial Decisions
Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may also assist authors in improving their manuscripts.
Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible, should notify the editor and decline the invitation to review.
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
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 is an observation, derivation, or argument that has been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also inform the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
- Disclosure and Conflict of Interest
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers who have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts should decline the invitation to review.
Duties of Editor
- Publication decisions
The editor is responsible for deciding which of the submitted manuscripts should be published. The editor may be guided by the policies of the editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
- Fair play
Editor should evaluate submitted manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit without regard to author’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Editor and editorial staff will not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
- Disclosure and conflicts of interest
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript will not be used in editor’s own research without the author’s explicit written consent.
ERAZ conference organizer and the publisher shall guarantee the high technical and professional quality of the publications and that good practice and ethical standards are maintained. If any of the above mentioned unethical behaviors are identified, an investigation will be initiated and pertinent actions will be taken. For more information about best publishing ethical behaviors, authors are referred to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines:
Registration and peer review process
Abstracts are submitted on the website – email submissions are not accepted. Each abstract is reviewed in a double-blind peer review process. The double-blind review process ensure that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the peer review process. Authors do not know who conducted their reviews, reviewers do not know whose abstract/paper they are reviewing.
Peer reviewers are pre-registered on the website. At the beginning of the review period, peer reviewers are requested to confirm that they are available to review abstracts and/or full papers. Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review an abstract is 20-30 minutes.
Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations. Reviewers can provide feedback for the author, and also private feedback for the editor.
Authors will be notified by email if their abstract has been accepted. There is no second review of abstracts that have been accepted “with modification”. The modification of the abstract takes place when the full paper is submitted.
Full papers are submitted for double-blind peer review after successful acceptance of a conference abstract. Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments.
Peer reviewers provide a critical assessment of the paper, and may recommend improvements. Although the author may choose not to take this advice, it is highly recommended that the author address any issues, explaining why their research process or conclusions are correct.
Notes for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review a paper is at least 1 hour and significantly more time is common in order to do them justice. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations.
If you are invited to review a full paper, please consider:
- Do you have time to do the review by the deadline?
- Is the article within your area of expertise?
- Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline?
Peer review of full papers is NOT about correcting grammar, spelling, poorly written references. It is about reviewing the academic validity and relevance of the paper! As a reviewer, if you find yourself correcting spelling, you are probably becoming bogged down in the detail, when you are meant to be assessing the “big picture”!
Full papers are evaluated against the following criteria:
1. The title, abstract and keywords must accurately reflect the paper’s contents.
2. The research must be relevant to the conference theme/s.
3. The research methodology must be sound.
4. The paper must be well-structured and clearly written.
5. References must be relevant and accurate.
The conference scientific committee makes decisions where there is a significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations. Authors may be asked to revise their full paper where it does not correspond to their abstract, where layout or references are formatted incorrectly, to correct grammar or improve on the paper quality.
Where the conference committee requires a revision, the paper will not be published without the revision or an approved explanation of the issue.
Any identified plagiarism will automatically disqualify a paper.