It is necessary to agree upon standards of expected ethical behavior for all parties
involved in the act of publishing: the author, the journal editor, the peer reviewer and the
publisher.
All Conference Proceedings and Journals published by the Hinweis Research Organization
are
dedicated to following best practices on ethical matters, errors and retractions. The
prevention of publication malpractice is one of the important responsibilities of the
editorial board. Any kind of unethical behavior is not acceptable, and the HR
Organization
do not tolerate plagiarism in any form.
Authors submitting articles to the Hinweis Research Conference or Journals affirm that
manuscript contents are original.
Duties of Editors
Publication decisions: The editors at the Hinweis Research is responsible for
deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The editor
may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such
legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and
plagiarism. The editor may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this
decision.
Fair play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual
content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic
origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any
information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author,
reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as
appropriate
Disclosure and conflicts of interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted
manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written
consent of the author.
Duties of Reviewers
Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making
editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist
the author in improving the paper.
Promptness: 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.
Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential
documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the
editor.
Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism
of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting
arguments.
Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that
has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or
argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A
reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap
between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have
personal knowledge.
Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through
peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. 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.