RoCHI conference is the annual event of the RoCHI (ACM SIGCHI Romania) group. As such, the RoCHI publication ethics will be compliant with the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct.
The editors of the proceedings are the conference and program committee (PC) chairs. The editors are responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the conference will be published. The decision will be based on the recommendations of PC members and reviewers. The PC chair may be assisted in the decision by PC members having the status of chairs.
Each paper will be reviewed by at least three independent (i.e., not from the same organization) reviewers. The submissions will be assigned to reviewers with affiliations that are different from the organization of any of the authors.
If there are significant differences between the reviewers’ scores and arguments, the PC chair will prompt the reviewers to comment and revise the review if needed. The PC chair will make the proposal for acceptance / rejection of submission to the conference chairs and PC members having the status of chairs.
The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted paper will not be used by the editor or the members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the author's explicit written consent.
The peer-reviewing process assists the editor and the editorial board in making editorial decisions and may also serve the author in improving the paper. The reviewers will evaluate the submissions without regard to the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy.
The review will be based on the paper’s importance, originality and clarity, and the study’s validity and its relevance to the conference's scope. Current legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement, and plagiarism should also be considered.
Reviewers should identify cases in which relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited. They should point out whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are accompanied by the respective source. They should mention any substantial similarity or overlap between the submission and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review submission or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and withdraw from the review process.
Any submission received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be disclosed to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider submissions in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the papers.
Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Related data should be represented accurately in the paper. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors should submit only original works, and should appropriately cite or quote the work and/or words of others. Plagiarism is totally inacceptable and will determine the immediate rejection of the paper. Submitting the same paper to more than one conference constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included in the author list. The corresponding author will also verify that all co-authors have approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
All authors should include a statement disclosing any financial or other substantive conflicts of interest that may be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their submission. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the publisher and to cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper in the form of an erratum.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). (2011). Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors.