The 10th International Conference on Systematic Innovation (ICSI) & the 9th Global Competition on Systematic Innovation (GCSI)

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement


ICSI proceedings’ statement on Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based on Elsevier recommendations and with reference to Committee on Publication Ethics COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.

A selection of key points is included below. The categorization is made on Duties of Editors, Duties of Reviewers and Duties of Authors. However, in case of discrepancy the Editor in chief’s decision will be final.


  1. Duties of Editors


Fair play and Publication decisions

Submitted manuscripts will only be evaluated on the basis of their contributions and their relevance to the journal’s scope. Authors’ ethnic background, political orientation, nationality, gender, religious belief, or institutional affiliation are never taken into account during editorial process. All submitted manuscripts being considered for publication will undergo peer-review by reviewers who are experts in the field. The editorial board will decide whether or not the manuscript should be published based on reviewer’s comments and its contents. Moreover, legal requirements such as libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism will also be considered.



Editors 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

Editors and editorial board members will not take the liberty to use unpublished information disclosed in a submitted manuscript for their personal advantage. Editors will ask another member of the editorial board to handle the manuscript in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships/connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the papers.


  1. Duties of Reviewers


Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists editors in making editorial decisions and, through editorial communications with authors, may assist authors in improving their manuscripts. Peer review is an essential component of formal scholarly communication and lies at the heart of scientific endeavor.



Any invited reviewer who feels unqualified to undertake the task or knows that a prompt review will be impossible should immediately notify the editors and decline the invitation so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.



Any manuscripts received for review are confidential documents and must be treated as such. They must not be shown to or discussed with others under any circumstances. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.


Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively and observations formulated clearly with supporting arguments. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate.


Acknowledgment 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 reported in previous publications should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also notify the editors of any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other manuscript (published or unpublished) of which they have personal knowledge.


Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Any invited referee who has conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies or institutions connected to the manuscript and the work described therein should immediately notify the editors to declare their conflicts of interest and decline the invitation. Reviewers must not use the material disclosed in a submitted manuscript in their own research or for their personal advantage without author’s written consent. This applies also to invited reviewers who decline the review invitation.



  1. Duties of Authors


Reporting standards

Authors of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed and the results, followed by an objective discussion of the significance of the work. Review articles should be accurate, objective and comprehensive, while editorial ‘opinion’ or perspective pieces should be clearly identified as such. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.


Originality and plagiarism

Authors should ensure that they have written and submit only original works, and if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited. Plagiarism takes many forms, from “passing off” another’s paper as the author’s own, 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 behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, duplicate, redundant or concurrent submission/publication

Papers describing essentially the same research should not be published in more than one journal or primary publication. Hence, authors should not submit for consideration a manuscript that has already been published in another journal.


Authorship of the manuscript

Only persons who meet these authorship criteria should be listed as authors in the manuscript as they must be able to take public responsibility for the content: (i) made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, data acquisition, or analysis/interpretation of the study; (ii) drafted the manuscript or revised it critically for important intellectual content; and (iii) have seen and approved the final version of the paper and agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate coauthors (according to the above definition) and no inappropriate coauthors are included in the author list and verify that all coauthors have seen and approved the final version of the manuscript and agreed to its submission for publication.


Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Authors should-at the earliest stage possible (generally by submitting a disclosure form at the time of submission and including a statement in the cover letter)-disclose any conflicts of interest that might be construed to influence the results or their interpretation in the submission. Examples of potential conflicts of interest that should be disclosed include financial ones such as educational grants or other funding, participation in author’s organization, membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, other equity interest, paid expert testimony, or patent-licensing arrangements, as well as non-financial ones such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations. All sources of financial support for the work should be disclosed in the acknowledgment section. (including the grant number or other reference number if any).


Acknowledgment of sources

Authors should ensure that they have properly acknowledged the work of others, and should also cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work. Information obtained privately (from conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties) must not be used or reported without explicit, written permission from the source. Authors should not use information obtained in the course of providing confidential services, such as refereeing manuscripts or grant applications, unless they have obtained the explicit written permission of the author(s) of the work involved in these services.


 Peer review

Authors are obliged to be listed on the reviewer list to participate in potential peer review process and cooperate fully by responding promptly to editors’ requests for raw data, clarifications, and proof of ethics approval, patient consents and copyright permissions. In the case of a first decision of “revisions necessary”, authors should respond to the reviewers’ comments systematically, point by point, revising and re-submitting their manuscript to the journal in a timely manner.


Fundamental errors in published works

When authors discover significant errors or inaccuracies in their own published work, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal’s editors or publisher and cooperate with them to either correct the paper in the form of an erratum or to retract the paper. If the editors or publisher learns from a third party that a published work contains a significant error or inaccuracy, then it is the authors’ obligation to promptly correct or retract the paper or provide evidence to the journal editors of the correctness of the paper.