Publication Ethics Statement

This statement sets out the ethical standards applied by the Editor, the conference committees, the reviewers and the authors of the Proceedings of the 27th IMEKO TC4 Conference 2026 with Special TC11 Technical Session, published by IMEKO – International Measurement Confederation. It is adapted from the publishing ethics policies that Elsevier provides to journal editors through its Publishing Ethics Resource Kit (PERK): the Publishing Ethics policy, the Article Correction, Retraction and Removal Policy and the Generative AI Policies for Journals, which follow the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The same principles apply to papers from the Proceedings that are invited for extended publication in journal special issues.

Duties of the Editor and the Conference Committees

Publication decisions. The Editor, together with the General Conference Chair and the Technical Programme Co-Chairs, is responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers are published in the Proceedings. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always underwrite such decisions. The Editor is constrained by legal requirements regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism, and may confer with other committee members or reviewers in making these decisions. Sponsorship or other commercial revenue of the conference has no influence on editorial decisions.

Peer review. The Editor ensures that the peer review process is fair, unbiased and timely. Each full paper is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with suitable expertise in the relevant field, and where necessary the Editor seeks additional opinions. The Editor reviews all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest and suggestions for self-citation made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias. Reviews that are hostile, unprofessional or not scientifically constructive may be edited or withheld from the authors.

Fair play. Manuscripts are evaluated for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors. Reviewers and authors are given a clear understanding of what is expected of them. Authors may appeal against editorial decisions by contacting the Editor.

Confidentiality. The Editor protects the confidentiality of all material submitted to the conference and of all communications with reviewers, and protects the identities of the reviewers. In exceptional circumstances, the Editor may share limited information with editors of other publications, institutions or organizations that investigate cases of research misconduct, where necessary to investigate suspected ethical breaches. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript are not used in the Editor’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review are kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. The Editor does not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool.

Competing interests. The Editor and the committee members responsible for editorial decisions are not involved in decisions about papers which they have written themselves, which have been written by family members or close colleagues, or which relate to products or services in which they have an interest. Such submissions are subject to the usual procedures, and their peer review is handled independently of the author concerned.

Vigilance over the published record. The Editor safeguards the integrity of the published record by reviewing and assessing reported or suspected misconduct, in conjunction with the Organizing Committee. This generally includes contacting the authors and giving due consideration to the complaint, and may include further communication with the relevant institutions and research bodies. When presented with convincing evidence of misconduct, the Editor arranges the prompt publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern or other correction to the record.

Duties of Reviewers

Contribution to editorial decisions. Peer review assists the Editor in making editorial decisions and, through the editorial communication with the authors, assists the authors in improving the paper. In addition to the scientific evaluation of the manuscript, a reviewer should be alert to potential ethical issues in the paper and bring them to the attention of the Editor, including any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which the reviewer has personal knowledge. Any reviewer 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 decline to participate in the review process.

Objectivity and competing interests. Reviews are conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the authors is inappropriate, and reviewers should express their views clearly with supporting arguments. Reviewers should declare potential conflicts of interest to the Editor before agreeing to review a manuscript and should discuss with the Editor whether they need to recuse themselves. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include recent collaborations between the reviewer and the authors, close personal relationships, and direct competitive interests. Reviewers do not review papers of which they are authors or co-authors. Reviewers should not suggest citations to their own work or to the work of their associates unless there are genuine scientific reasons.

Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as a confidential document. Reviewers must not share the review or information about the paper with anyone, nor contact the authors directly without permission from the Editor. Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the express written consent of the authors. Reviewers must not upload a submitted manuscript or any part of it into a generative AI tool. AI tools may be used only in a supportive capacity, for example to improve the language of a review report, provided that confidentiality is maintained; reviewers remain fully responsible for the content of their reports.

Duties of Authors

Reporting standards and data. Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper, and the paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Authors may be asked to provide the research data supporting their paper for editorial review and should retain such data for a reasonable number of years after publication.

Originality and acknowledgement of sources. Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works and, if they have used the work and/or words of others, that this has been appropriately cited or quoted and that permission has been obtained where necessary. Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence or discussion with third parties, must not be used or reported without explicit written permission from the source. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another’s paper as the author’s own paper, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. Submissions may be screened with similarity-detection software.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication. Authors should not publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one conference or journal concurrently constitutes unethical behaviour and is unacceptable. A paper that has been published previously should not be submitted, except in the form of an abstract, as part of a published lecture or academic thesis, or as an electronic preprint. Extended versions of Proceedings papers submitted to journal special issues must cite the Proceedings paper and must comply with the originality requirements of the journal.

Authorship of the paper. Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made substantial contributions should be listed as co-authors; others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the paper should be recognised in the acknowledgements. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Only in exceptional circumstances will the Editor consider the addition, deletion or rearrangement of authors after submission, and all authors must agree with any such change. Generative AI tools cannot be listed or cited as an author. Authors should use the full, standard name of their institution and state its country, so that the affiliation can be independently verified.

Declaration of competing interests. All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial and personal relationships with other people or organizations that could be viewed as inappropriately influencing their work. All sources of financial support for the conduct of the research and/or preparation of the paper should be disclosed. Examples of potential conflicts of interest include employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, patent applications or registrations, and grants or other funding.

Images and hazards. It is not acceptable to enhance, obscure, move, remove or introduce a specific feature within an image. Adjustments of brightness, contrast or colour balance are acceptable as long as they do not obscure or eliminate any information present in the original. If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have unusual hazards inherent in their use, or involves human participants or their data, the authors must clearly state this in the manuscript and confirm that the applicable approvals and consent were obtained.

Use of generative AI. Authors may use generative AI and AI-assisted technologies to support tasks such as content organization and improving language and readability, but these tools must never be used as a substitute for human critical thinking, expertise and evaluation. Authors are responsible and accountable for the contents of their work, including verifying the accuracy of all AI-generated output and its sources. Such use must be disclosed in a separate declaration statement in the manuscript, giving the name of the tool, the purpose of its use and the extent of the authors’ oversight; basic checks of grammar, spelling and punctuation do not need to be declared. AI tools must not be used to fabricate results, to invent or alter underlying data, or to create or alter images that represent primary measured or experimental data.

Notification of fundamental errors. When authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published paper, it is their obligation to promptly notify the Editor and to cooperate with the Editor to retract or correct the paper if deemed necessary. If the Editor learns from a third party that a published paper contains an error, it is the obligation of the authors to cooperate with the Editor, including providing evidence where requested.

Corrections, Retractions and Complaints

Corrections. Papers that have been published in the Proceedings remain extant, exact and unaltered as far as possible. When the scientific record requires correction, this is made by a notice published on the conference website and linked from the Proceedings page. A corrigendum is published where it is required to correct an error or omission, but the results and conclusions of the paper are not affected by the error; it is drafted by the authors, subject to the approval of the Editor, and all authors must agree to its publication. An erratum is issued by the Editor to correct an error made during the publication of the paper. An expression of concern may be published to alert readers to potential concerns that might affect the reliability of a paper while an investigation is unresolved or underway.

Retractions. A paper is retracted where the Editor has clear evidence that the findings are unreliable, either as a result of major error or as a result of fabrication or falsification; where the paper constitutes plagiarism, including substantial overlap in the view of the Editor; where the findings have previously been published elsewhere without proper attribution, disclosure or justification; where the paper contains material or data that the authors were not authorized to publish; where copyright has been infringed or there is another serious legal issue; where there is evidence of compromised peer review, fictitious authorship or citation manipulation; where the authors failed to disclose a major competing interest that would have materially affected the interpretation of the work; or where there is evidence of any other breach of this statement, including the policy on generative AI, such that the Editor has lost confidence in the results and conclusions of the paper. A retraction notice titled “Retraction: [paper title]”, signed by the Editor and, if appropriate, by the authors, is published on the conference website and linked from the Proceedings page. The original paper is retained, marked as retracted on each page. The Editor informs the publisher of every correction and retraction.

Complaints and appeals. Complaints about the review process, allegations of misconduct and appeals against editorial decisions should be addressed to the Editor at imeko2026@fel.cvut.cz. Allegations are handled in accordance with the COPE guidelines. The parties concerned are given the opportunity to respond, and the outcome is communicated to the complainant.