Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

This statement is also published on the conference website: Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Editorial definition

Publisher

Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems and Logistics is published by publish-Ing., a publication platform operated by the Institute for Production and Logistics Research GbR (IPLR GbR) Herberger, Hübner & Beuse, in cooperation with the Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology and University Library (TIB), Hannover.

Editorial office address: IPLR GbR Herberger, Hübner & Beuse, Senator-Burda-Straße 31a, 77654 Offenburg, Germany. Email: info@publish-ing.com. USt-IdNr.: DE324911115.

Copyright and license

Publication type: Open Access. All papers are made available to the public for an unlimited period of time under the following Creative Commons license: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany (CC BY 3.0 DE).

Introduction

Publication ethics and the prevention of malpractice in science are at the heart of our operation. We promote the best standards of publication ethics and take all possible measures against publication malpractice. We (IPLR GbR, represented by the editors) take our responsibilities over all stages of publication seriously. All parties involved in our publication process (editors, reviewers, authors and the publisher) must agree on ethical standards of conduct. The mutual agreement on the following principles of publication ethics forms the foundation of publishing with Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems and Logistics.

This statement is based on the COPE Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines (publicationethics.org).

Editors' duties and responsibilities

Publication decisions

The editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers will be published. The editors evaluate contributions without regard to race, nationality, gender, religious belief, sexual orientation, ethnic origin, or political belief. The decision to accept or reject a paper is based only on the paper's importance, originality and clarity, and the study's relevance to the aims and scope of Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems and Logistics. Applicable legal provisions relating to libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism are also taken into account. This decision is based on the expert opinions provided by selected reviewers.

Confidentiality

The editors and all editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted contribution to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisors and the publisher. Editors ensure that submitted material remains confidential during the review process.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted paper may not be used by the publisher or members of the editorial board for their own research purposes without the explicit written consent of the author. Original content, information or ideas received by editors while handling a paper are kept confidential and are not used for personal benefit. Editors withdraw from handling papers where they have conflicts of interest due to competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, companies, or institutions associated with the paper; another member of the editorial board handles the paper instead, or the paper is not accepted if the conflict cannot be resolved.

Peer review process

Every paper undergoes a two-stage double peer review: a first review by a member of the CPSL Scientific Committee and a second review by a fellow author, with all reviews monitored by the editors before a decision. At least one full peer review is completed for every submission.

The editors may reject a paper outright, either because it does not address the journal's scope or because it is obviously of such low quality that it cannot be considered for peer review. Reviewers rate each paper as publishable immediately, publishable with minor changes, or in need of revision with a subsequent second review. Reviewers may classify a paper as unpublishable only after a second review process, when the authors have had the opportunity to implement the reviewers' comments from the first review. Reviewers' assessments always include an explicit recommendation. After the review process, the reviewers' comments are forwarded to the authors. Editors are prepared to justify any important deviation from the described procedure and do not reverse publication decisions unless serious problems are identified.

Involvement and cooperation in investigations

The editors, in close coordination with the publisher (publish-Ing. and TIB Hannover), take responsive measures when ethical concerns are raised regarding a submitted or published paper. Any reported case of unethical publishing behaviour is investigated, even if it is discovered years after publication. The editors follow the COPE Flowcharts when addressing cases of suspected misconduct.

Corrections, retractions and expressions of concern

If an investigation substantiates ethical concerns, a correction, retraction, or expression of concern is published in Proceedings of the Conference on Production Systems and Logistics and linked to the original paper. Retracted papers remain available and are clearly marked as retracted.

Archiving and access

By handing over the papers to publish-Ing. and TIB Hannover, the editors ensure preservation of and access to the journal content. Access is guaranteed independent of the availability of www.cpsl-conference.com or any associated websites; publications remain available even if the associated conference or journal were to cease to exist.

Reviewers' duties and responsibilities

Contribution to editorial decisions

The peer review process assists the editors in making decisions and helps authors improve their work. Peer reviews are an essential part of formal scientific communication and are at the heart of the scientific method. Reviewers are asked to report ethical issues and deviations from good scientific practice, to treat authors and their work as they would like to be treated, and to observe good peer review manners.

Promptness

Any selected reviewer who does not feel qualified to review a paper, is not in a position to review it, or knows that a rapid review is not possible, should inform the editors so that a decision can be made on how to proceed.

Confidentiality

Papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editors. Unpublished material disclosed in a submitted paper may not be used for the reviewers' own research without the written permission of the authors. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and may not be used for personal gain.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

Reviewers do not review papers in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative or other relationships or affiliations with any of the authors, companies or institutions associated with the paper, and contact the editors before agreeing to review where a potential conflict exists.

Standards of objectivity

Reviews are conducted objectively. Personal criticism in any form is inappropriate. Reviewers express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

Acknowledgement of sources

Reviewers point out cases where relevant published work referred to in the paper has not been cited in the reference section, whether observations or arguments derived from other publications are cited with the relevant source, and inform the editors of any significant similarities or overlaps between the paper under review and another published work of which they have personal knowledge.

Authors' duties and responsibilities

Reporting standards

Authors provide an accurate description of the work performed and an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data are presented accurately. A paper includes sufficient detail and references to allow others to reproduce the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable. Authors alone are responsible for ensuring that the content of their paper is truthful and scientifically appropriate.

Data access and retention

Authors may be asked to provide the raw data of their findings in conjunction with a paper for editorial review, should be prepared to provide public access to these data where practicable, and should retain these data for at least 10 years after publication (preferably via an institutional or subject-based data repository).

Originality, plagiarism and acknowledgement of sources

Authors submit only entirely original works and cite the work and words of others appropriately. Publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the submitted work are also cited. Plagiarism of any kind constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Information obtained privately may not be used without the explicit written permission of the source; information obtained in the course of confidential services, such as peer review, may not be used without the explicit written permission of the author of the work involved.

Multiple, redundant or concurrent publication

An author should not publish papers describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same paper to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour. Previously published copyrighted material may not be submitted. Copyright remains with the authors; if a text is republished, the first publication must be cited.

Authorship of the paper

Authorship is limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the submitted paper. All significant contributors are listed as co-authors. The corresponding author ensures that all contributing co-authors and no uninvolved persons are included, and that all co-authors have approved the final version and consent to its submission.

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

All authors disclose any financial or other material conflicts of interest that could be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their paper. All sources of financial support are disclosed, including the role of the funders in the research.

Use of artificial intelligence

Artificial intelligence tools cannot be listed as authors and cannot take responsibility for a paper's content. Authors who use AI tools substantively in the preparation of a manuscript (beyond language polishing and grammar checking) disclose this use transparently in the paper. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality and integrity of all content, including any content produced with the assistance of AI tools.

Participation in peer review

Authors participate and cooperate fully in the peer review process by responding promptly to editors' requests for raw data, clarifications and copyright permissions. In the event of a "revision required" decision, authors respond systematically, item by item, to the reviewers' comments, revise their manuscript, and resubmit it according to the submission timeline.

Fundamental errors in published works

If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published work, it is their duty to notify the editors or publisher immediately and to cooperate in correcting the work in the form of an erratum or withdrawing it. If the editors or publisher learn from a third party that a published work contains a significant error, the authors are obliged to correct or withdraw the work immediately, or to provide the editors with proof of the accuracy of the original work.

Publisher's duties and responsibilities

publish-Ing. safeguards the editorial independence of the editors and supports them in following COPE guidance. The publisher ensures permanent archiving and open accessibility of all published papers in cooperation with TIB Hannover, provides the technical infrastructure for a confidential and documented peer review process, and cooperates with the editors in investigations of suspected misconduct, including the publication of corrections, retractions and expressions of concern. The publisher does not influence individual editorial decisions.

Complaints and appeals

Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision, and any party who wishes to raise a complaint about editorial processes, the conduct of a review, or suspected misconduct, may contact the editorial office at info@publish-ing.com. Complaints are handled by an editor who was not involved in the case concerned, following COPE guidance. The complainant receives an acknowledgement and a substantive response; where a complaint is upheld, appropriate corrective action is taken.