The ORPEMS Code of Ethics describes the review policies for ensuring the ethical treatment of Reviewer(s) and Author(s). Commitment to ethical professional conduct is expected from all Reviewers. Technical Program Committee Chair(s) (TPC), Workshop Organiser(s) and Posters Chair(s) are encouraged to study these guidelines and address any questions or concerns to Steering Committee Chair(s) and General Chair(s), at email@example.com.
Section 1: Integrity and Individuality
1.1 As a Reviewer, you will be expected to review at least two to three papers and agree to the rules and policies that govern the conference. Understanding and accepting the personal "code of ethics" as long as you continue to be involved as a Reviewer:
- i. The reviewer(s) comments should neither neglect nor discriminate against individuals and groups who may benefit from the feedback.
- It is important to respect the integrity and individuality of the Author(s) and other Peer Reviewer's comments.
iii. Reviewer(s) should exercise their position of privilege in a confidential, unbiased, prompt, constructive and sensitive manner, not to advance private interests at the expense of the research work under review.
iv To treat fairly all Authors and the Technical Program Committee Members, Workshop Organiser(s) and Posters Chair(s) and those who directly and indirectly contributed to the conference regardless of such factors as race, religion, gender, special needs, age, or national origin.
1.2 Never to misuse copyrighted, patented material, trade secrets or any other intangible asset.
Section 2: Conflict of Interest
2.1 Reviewers should avoid any practice that gives rise to a conflict of interest or the reasonable appearance of one.
2.2 Reviewers should not consider a paper in which they have a real or potential conflict of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, financial or other relationships or connections with any of the Authors, companies or institutions connected to the paper.
Section 3: Double-Blind Review
3.1 ORPEMS follows a double-blind review process, whereby Authors do not know Reviewers and vice versa.
Section 4: Confidentiality
4.1 Reviewers shall not disclose information about a paper to anyone other than Reviewers and Authors.
Section 5: Review Quality
5.1 At least, three Reviewers should be invited to comment on a paper, but a minimum of two Reviewers is acceptable. In rare circumstances, the Steering Committee Chair(s) may edit a review before sending it to an Author (for example, to remove a phrase that would identify the Reviewer) or not send the review to the Author if it is not constructive or appropriate.
Section 6: Conflict of Interest and Right of Refusal
6.1 ORPEMS has a double-blind review process. Reviewers should refuse to review papers where they have provided written comments on the paper or an earlier version to the Author. If a Reviewer knows the identity of an Author or Co-Author, this would normally be grounds for refusal to review. Reviewers also have a responsibility to avoid writing, doing or saying anything that could identify them to an Author.
6.2 It is acceptable for Reviewer(s) to decline to review paper(s) in which they have any conflicts of interest resulting from collaborative, financial, institutional, personal, or other relationships or connections with any of the companies, institutions, or people connected to the papers. Under the double-blind review process, Reviewers are unlikely to be aware of and are therefore not bound by conflicts of interest involving Authors.
6.3 Reviewer who feels inadequately qualified to judge the research reported in a paper should refuse to review the paper.
6.4 If Reviewers do become aware of any conflicts of interest (6.1, 6.2, or 6.3), please inform the Steering Committee Chair immediately.
Section 7: Unbiased
7.1 All paper should be evaluated objectively, fairly and professionally. Reviewer(s) have the duty to judge papers only on their scholarly merits without personal or ideological favouritism or malice. To respond willingly to share knowledge with others, accept, and offer honest criticism of research work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others.
Section 8: Confidentiality
8.1 It is very important to respect the confidentiality of the paper and not to discuss the paper with anyone other than the Steering Committee Chair(s), General Chair(s), Technical Program Chair(s) (TPC), Workshop Organisers and Posters Chair(s) depending who should be contacted.
Section 9: Accuracy
9.1 The Reviewer(s) accept responsibility to review Author's paper(s) within his/her research domain, giving research related comments that can enhance the quality of the research work. Reviewers should be honest with the Author in terms of their concerns about the paper. Reviewers should explain and support their scholarly judgments adequately; that is, they should provide sufficient detail to the Author to justify their recommendation to the Steering Committee Chair.
Section 10: Timeliness
10.1 Reviewer(s) should take steps to ensure the timely review of all papers. A paper should not take more than four to six weeks to review. If a Reviewer cannot meet the deadline given, the Reviewer should contact the Steering Committee Chair as soon as possible to determine whether a longer time period or a new Reviewer should be chosen.
How to submit a paper?
- To submit a paper you must be register as an author. Reviewers are not allowed to submit papers.
- After registering as an author, please login to your account.
- Click here to visit the conferences page.
- Click on Dashboard link under the appropriate conference.
- After you visit the dashboard, click on the New Paper link.
- Fill the required fields and click on the submit button.
- Your paper will be ready for review after approval.