Publication Procedure, Ethics and Malpractice Statement

Publication procedure

All publications submitted to CinC are evaluated based on an abstract (HTML) with the optional addition of an extended PDF version. For the Young Investigator Award (YIA) application, the submission of a 4-page paper is mandatory. Each contribution undergoes a review process by at least two field experts (3 for the YIA), who provide a final score, calculated from metrics originality, impact, quality of results, manuscript clarity, and overall quality, along with constructive comments for improvement. These scores, in conjunction with the authors’ stated preferences, determine whether a submission is selected for oral or poster presentation or, alternatively, rejected. A preliminary program, including the abstracts, is subsequently published on www.cinc.org.

Authors are strongly encouraged to submit 4-page preprint papers prior to the conference to enhance the experience for attendees. A final program, comprising all abstracts and preprints, is released ahead of the conference. To allow authors the opportunity to refine their work based on feedback received during the event, a one-month period is provided for submitting final versions of their 4-page papers. These final submissions are reviewed and professionally edited, with suggested revisions communicated to the authors. By the end of the year, the finalized program and corresponding papers are published in the Papers On-Line collection available here.

All relevant deadlines are communicated to authors and are accessible on www.cinc.org.

Since volume 33 (2006), CinC has been an open-access publication, in which copyright in each article is held by its authors, who grant permission to copy and redistribute their work with attribution, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License. Earlier volumes appear here courtesy of the IEEE.

In addition to this meticulous evaluation of submitted papers, a Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is strictly upheld. This policy adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors and is defined as follows:

Publication ethics and publication malpractice statement

In the following text, the responsibilities of the journal Editor, Editor-in-Chief, and publisher are collectively assumed by all members of the Board of Directors. All parties involved in the publishing process (including authors, journal editors, peer reviewers, and the publisher) must adhere to and uphold established standards of ethical conduct.

1. Duties of the Editors-in-Chief

  • Fair play

Submitted manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.

  • Confidentiality

The Editor-in-Chief and any editorial staff must 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 must not be used in an Editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author(s).

  • Publication decisions

The handling Editor-in-Chief of the journal is responsible for deciding which of the submitted articles should be published. The Editor-in-Chief may be guided by the policies of the journal’s Editorial Board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The Editor-in-Chief may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.

2. Duties of peer reviewers

  • Contribution to editorial decisions

Peer review assists the Editor-in-Chief in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the author, may also assist the author in improving the manuscript.

  • Promptness

Any invited referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its timely review will be impossible should immediately notify the Editor-in-Chief so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.

  • Confidentiality

Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except if authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.

  • Standards of objectivity

Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inacceptable. Referees should express their views clearly with appropriate 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 data 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 should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.

3. Duties of authors

  • Reporting standards

Authors reporting results 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. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute