IST-Africa Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement

Authors

All papers submitted for double blind peer review and publication must be original work of the authors (which includes any co-authors). See IST-Africa Editorial Policy

Authors are those individuals who have made a significant contribution to the work.

All named authors must have reviewed the paper and approved its submission for double blind peer review and publication.

Papers should not be submitted to other conferences or journals while under review.

All references in the paper should be properly cited.

Plagiarism of any kind (including copying, paraphrasing or unreferenced self-plagiarism of previous work) is prohibited. Where papers including plagiarised content are identified, they are subject to rejection or withdrawal.

Authors must have secured any necessary ethical approval as appropriate.

Authors must have secured any necessary informed consent from research subjects as appropriate.

Authors should disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest associated with the work being showcased in the interests of transparency and credibility.

Authors are responsible for notifying the IST-Africa Conference Organisers in a timely fashion of any errors identified by the authors that need to be corrected, either prior to or following publication.

Technical Reviewers

The review process is entirely confidential. Papers reviewed and any reviews provided cannot be shared outside the review process.

Technical reviewers are expected to carry out all reviews themselves based on their professional and thematic expertise.

Where reviewers are assigned a paper which they believe they cannot adequately assess, this should be communicated to the Technical Program Chair to either reassign the paper or add an additional reviewer with specific expertise.

Technical reviewers must not use AI tools for reviewing purposes, both to protect the confidentiality of authors' unpublished intellectual property as well as protect the integrity and accountability of the double blind peer review process.

Reviewers are expected to provide actionable, constructive feedback to authors to help them improve the quality, impact, accessibility and coherence of the paper reviewed. This should be the case whether a paper is recommended for acceptance or rejection.

Where a reviewer suspects potential plagiarism or self-plagiarism, data fabrication or potential unethical practices, this must be highlighted in the confidential review report for further review by the Technical Program Chair.

Reviewers should disclose any actual, potential or perceived conflicts of interest (e.g. work for same institution or research partner with any author) when assigned papers so if necessary, such papers can be assigned to other reviewers.

Technical Program Chair and Conference Chair Responsibilities

The content of all reviews will be carefully considered by the Technical Program Chair prior to finalising the decision process, which will take into account quality, originality, scope etc. The review process (including the content of review reports and identity of specific reviewers of specific papers) is confidential. All papers are evaluated based on scientific merit and relevance, including quality, impact, accessibility and coherence as well as relevance to the scope of the conference.

The Technical Program Chair will recuse themselves from any decision associated with a paper where there is an actual, potential or perceived conflict of interest. Such cases will be referred to the Conference Chair.

The Technical Program Chair will cooperate with the Conference Chair to take necessary actions (e.g. corrections, retractions) as required.