Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement
RACR series and conferences are committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. RACR Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based, in large part, on existing Elsevier policies (https://www.elsevier.com/authors/journal-authors/policies-and-ethics).
All articles not in accordance with these standards will not be admitted in RACR books and/or Conferences if malpractice is discovered at any time even after the publication. RACR is checking all papers in a triple-blind peer review process (one for language level and two for scientific matters). We also check for plagiarism and research fabrication (making up research data); falsification (manipulation of existing research data, tables, or images) and improper use of humans or animals in research. In accordance with the code of conduct, we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing. RACR reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors
Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. The authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one conference or publication constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. The corresponding author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Reviewers
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 and using the form provided by the Editors. 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.
