- The SEABC Conference follows the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible procedures against any publication misconduct. This Conference does not accept any type of plagiarism, which means that any author replicating a significant part of another’s work without acknowledging him/her or passing another’s work off as his/her own are not tolerated and not published. SEABC reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.
- Authors 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 wherever possible. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
- Authors may be asked to provide the raw data in connection with a paper for editorial review. They should be prepared to provide such data within reasonable time. The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted. Papers found with such problems are automatically rejected and authors are so advised.
- Proper acknowledgment of the work of others is required. Authors must cite publications that have led to the authors’ current research.
- All authors submitting their works to the SEABC Conference for publication as original works confirm that the submitted papers are their own contributions and have not been copied in whole or in part from other works.
- Each submission is anonymously reviewed by an average of three independent reviewers, to ensure the final high standard and quality of each accepted submission.
- Reviewers should identify significant published work that has not been acknowledged by the authors. The SEABC Conference guarantees that the entire peer review and publication process is meticulous and objective. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviews should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected 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 excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider 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 papers.
- Reviewer should also pays attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which he/she has personal knowledge. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without an expressed written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through a peer review must be kept confidential and not utilized for personal advantages. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest.
- All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the proceedings if malpractice is discovered at any time even after the publication.