Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

World Construction Symposium is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. The Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement of the World Construction Symposium is based, in large part, on COPE’s Core Practices (For more information, please visit COPE’s website).

All contributions made to the World Construction Symposium undergoes a rigorous review process.
1) Papers submitted will be sent to at least two independent referees selected from the symposium scientific committee for double-blind peer review.
2) Should the paper be accepted, at least one of the authors should register and orally present the paper in the symposium. Only papers presented and defended at the symposium will be published in the proceedings.

The Scientific Committee Co-chairs, who will be the editors of the symposium proceedings, will be responsible for final decisions on accepting or rejecting the papers. Decisions to accept or reject a paper for publication in the symposium proceedings will be based solely on the paper’s importance, originality, clarity, and the study’s relevance to the remit of the symposium. The Scientific Committee Co-chairs are committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.

This Symposium does not accept any type of plagiarism, research fabrication, falsification or improper use of humans or animals in research. World Construction Symposium reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times. Any article that is found to not be in accordance with the standards outlined here may be removed from the proceedings if malpractice is discovered at any time even after the publication. Hence, all parties involved (i.e. authors, editors, reviewers and the publisher) are expected to conform to the ethical standards. In particular:

Authors submitting their works to World Construction Symposium confirm that the submitted papers are their own original works and have not been copied in whole or in part from other works. Authors should ensure that the submitted papers are prepared to a high scholarly standard and fully referenced using the prescribed referencing system. Plagiarism and research fabrication/falsification in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable. Authors warrant that the papers submitted have neither been published elsewhere nor is being considered for publication during the review period. All researchers must be accurately represented and other appropriate acknowledgements clearly stated including sources of funding if any. Authors should certify that all the data has been acquired in keeping with recognised ethical research practices. 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. The authors should correspond and comply with the Scientific Committee Co-chairs and publisher in any requests for source data, proof of authorship or originality in a timely manner. Authors should read carefully, agree to and sign the copyright transfer form.

Reviewers should only agree to review papers that are relevant to their own expertise and are able to review within the proposed or mutually agreed time-frame. Reviewers should declare all potential competing or conflicting interests and should seek advice from the Scientific Committee Co-chairs if unsure about a potential competing interest. Competing interests may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature.
Reviewers should read the papers with appropriate care and endeavour to be objective, accurate, courteous and constructively critical in the appraisal of the papers. Reviewers’ observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that authors can use them for improving the paper. All work being reviewed should be treated as confidential and reviewed fairly without any prejudice. Reviewers should not make any use of the data, arguments, or interpretations, unless they have the authors’ permission. Any observed suspected ethical misconduct should be reported to the Scientific Committee Co-chairs.