MISTA Code of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines

Version: 1.00

Date: 16 Jan 2017

  1. Introduction
    1. The MISTA (Multidisciplinary International Scheduling Conference: Theory and Applications) has been run every two years since 2003. In that time it has published in excess of 500 papers as well as a number of special issues of guest edited journals.
    2. We are committed to the highest ethical standards at all stages of the publication process. We expect these standards to be upheld by editors, authors and other stakeholders. This page defines our code of conduct and our ethical procedures.
    3. Full details of the conference can be found at:
      http://schedulingconference.org/
    4. We have drawn largely on the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for many aspects of these guidelines.
      http://publicationethics.org/
    5. We will review and update these guidelines as necessary, and will also maintain a version control system so that we have a record of changes over time.

  2. General Guidelines
    1. It is expected any papers that are submitted to the conference adhere to the strict guidelines that underpin submitting research to an outlet that will ultimately appear in the scientific archive. This includes ensuring that all relevant work is cited, self-citations are not overly used, funding agencies are recognised, the work is original research that has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration elsewhere, any data is publicly available, the research (or parts of it) has not been plagiarised and the results are reproducible.
    2. The conference chairs have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of the scientific archive. This includes being willing to publish corrections, or retract articles, respond to authors and reviewers in a timely manner, ensure that authors and reviewers act in a professional and ethical manner and ensure that the scientific process is not compromised.
    3. Many of these points are also discussed below, but the point is made here so that there is immediate clarity of what is expected.

  3. Author's Responsibilities
    1. Every author must have significantly contributed to the resaerch. If you are in doubt whether a potential author should be listed, COPE has advice on how to deal with authorship disputes, along with a download that contains further information. If there is a dispute about authorship, the authors may be asked to justify their inclusion on the paper and/or justify why other author(s) are not listed.
    2. Authors should provide details about who has funded their research, and the role that the funder has played.
    3. By submitting a paper or abstract to the conference the authors are acknowledging that it is original research which has not been published elsewhere, and is not currently being considered for another publication.
    4. Authors have a responsibility to alert the conference chairs should any mistakes be found in the research after if it accepted or published. The statement should made in the form of a short paper that can be peer reviewed and published in the scientific archive.
    5. Authors have a responsibility to alert the conference chairs should they wish to retract the research after if it has been accepted or published. The retraction statement should clearly explain why the authors believe that the research should be retracted.
    6. The authors are responsible for ensuring that the data they have used is available to other researchers and that the authors have the right to use that data.
    7. The authors are should ensure that the research they present is reproducible.
    8. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest. If in doubt, contact the conference chairs (see below).

  4. Reviewer's Responsibilities
    1. Reviewers will respect the identities of the authors and will maintain the privacy of the authors and their research.
    2. Reviewers will not use any knowledge/insight gained from reviewing any papers until the research is publicly available in the scientific archive (whether this is the MISTA conference or another outlet).
    3. Reviews must be subjective and any remarks, positive or negative, should be justified.
    4. Reviewers are required to declare any conflicts of interest with regard to authors and funders. If in doubt, contact the conference chairs (see below).
    5. Reviewers have a responsibility to highlight any relevant work that has not been cited, taking due consideration about suggesting their own work be cited.

  5. Conference Chair's Responsibilities
    1. The conference chairs have responsibility for maintaining the quality of the research that is published as part of the MISTA conference.
    2. When a program committee member accepts to act for MISTA, he/she will be sent the guidelines that are they are expected to follow. These guidelines are also available on the conference web site and include a link to this code.
    3. The conference chairs have complete responsibility to accept/reject a paper/abstract, whilst ensuring that they adhere to the highest standards with regard to ethical procedures.
    4. If a conference chair has a conflict of interest, he/she will declare this to to the others chairs who will decide how best to deal with the case in hand. It may require asking a member of the program committee to help with the decision making process.
    5. Conference chairs must be able to justify their decisions, recognising that private comments to the conference chairs may have influenced their decision which cannot be shared with the authors.
    6. Reviewer identities will be protected and the conference chairs will do everything possible to ensure that this is upheld.
    7. If errors are found, the conference chairs have a responsibility to ensure that a correction is made or the paper is retracted.
    8. The conference chairs will continually seek ways to improve the conference.
    9. The conference chairs are responsible for maintaining the integrity of the academic record.
    10. The conference chairs will ensure that intellectual standards are not compromised by other, perhaps, conflicting requirements, such as commercial pressures.
    11. The conference chairs will respond promptly to authors and reviewers, including complaints.

  6. Conflicts of interest
    1. Authors, reviewers and conference chairs are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest.
    2. Conflicts of interest are those that could be considered or viewed as exerting an undue influence on the presentation, review and publication of scientific research. These may be financial, non-financial, professional or personal in nature.
    3. If you are in any doubt whether there is a conflict of interest, you should check with the conference chairs.

  7. Review of Papers
    1. Conference chairs should take all reasonable steps to ensure the quality of the material they publish, recognising that MISTA publishes different types of material (e.g. full conference papers, abstracts and special issue of journals), which may require different standards.
    2. The editorsí decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the paperís importance, originality, and clarity, and the studyís relevance to the remit of the journal.
    3. Our peer review process is as follows:
      1. Full papers for the conference proceedings will be reviewed by at least two people drawn from the published program committee. The conference chairs will make a decision based on these reviews, seeking further reviews if necessary.
      2. Abstracts for the conference proceedings will be reviewed by at least two people drawn from the published program committee. The conference chairs will make a decision based on these reviews, seeking further reviews if necessary.
      3. Special issues of journals that are guest edited by the MISTA conference chairs will follow the standards and procedures of the relevant journal.
    4. If authors wish to appeal against a decision, they should make representation to the conference chairs, who will consider the appeal and make a final decision.
    5. Editors will not usually reverse decisions to accept submissions unless there is a justifiable reason.
    6. New Editors should not overturn decisions to publish submissions made by the previous Editor unless serious problems have been identified.

  8. Confidentiality
    1. Conference chairs will ensure that material submitted to the conference remains confidential while under review.
    2. Reviewers are expected to respect the confidentiality of the papers that they review.

  9. Feedback
    1. We would welcome any feedback on the MISTA Ethics: Code of Conduct. In the first instance, communication should be sent to the MISTA General Chair, Professor Graham Kendall (Graham.Kendall@nottingham.ac.uk)

  10. Sources of Information
    1. Committee on Publication Ethics
    2. Kendall, G; Bai, R; Blazewicz, J; Causmaecker, P. D; Gendreau, M; John, R; Li, J; McCollum, B; Pesch, E; Qu, R; Sabar, N; Berghe, G. V. and Yee, A Good Laboratory Practice for optimization research. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 67 (4): 676-689, 2016.
    3. Kendall, G; Yee, A and McCollum, B Is There a Role for Publication Consultants and How Should Their Contribution be Recognized?. Science and Engineering Ethics, 22 (5): 1553-1560, 2016