PROCEEDINGS EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

PROCEEDINGS IIERJ EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

The most common source of complaint is a reviewer who happens to have read or been exposed to similar work. If reviews are blind, complainants may not know if work has been plagiarized or self-plagiarized, but they usually guess “self-plagiarized.”  Because Programme Chairs will not have much time to resolve these problems, we recommend that they make a rapid evaluation and then forward the case to IIERJ Editor-in-Chief for further review.  If problems are reported after the proceedings are published, the case should be forwarded to IIERJ Editor-in-Chief (see Step 2 below).

Step 1 — Get the facts together to the extent that time allows.  

This is your most important role in the process.  Does the paper appear to violate submission conditions?  (Simultaneous submission elsewhere, related work not disclosed). Can the related paper be identified and compared?  Can the paper be evaluated by iThenticate?  Is there evidence of self-plagiarism or plagiarism?   If the complaint appears to be unfounded, all you need to do is to wind up the case (See Step 3).

Step 2 – Forward the case to IIERJ Editor-in-Chief

If there is any suspicion of or evidence of misconduct, create a package with as much relevant information as possible, and send it to IIERJ Editor-in-Chief, who will probably turn it over to the PRC.  For a conference paper, this package should include:  the submitted paper, all of the meta data for the submitted paper, the decision letter and any attachments to it (e.g., all reviews), copies of any related correspondence with the track chair and reviewers, and copies of the plagiarized papers or pointers to them, if possible. Reports from automated comparisons can be helpful.

Step 3 – Wind up the case.

If you have resolved the case yourself, you should inform complainants of the actions you have taken while not violating confidentiality.  You must also send a summary report of the case to the Chair of the Publications and Research Committee providing details of it. If you have turned the case over to IARSA, you do not need to send the summary report, but you do need to inform complainants and authors that you have done that.

Conclusion

The reputation of IARSA, our e-Library, our IIERJ and our conferences depend on the diligence of our editors to identify and root out scholarly misconduct, but to do so in a way that is fair to all parties, educates where necessary, is beyond reproach in its processes, and is effective over the long term.