Introduction
This policy sets out the principles governing editorial independence, peer review integrity, and the management of conflicts of interest for all conference proceedings published by Extrica, including, but not limited to, Vibroengineering Procedia.
It supplements and should be read in conjunction with other applicable Extrica's policies. The policy is intended to ensure that conference proceedings published by Extrica meet the same standards of editorial integrity, transparency, and ethical publishing as Extrica journals, in line with international best practices and COPE guidance.
Scope of Conference Proceedings
Extrica defines conference proceedings in accordance with the definition provided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE): conference proceedings are a record of a conference, congress, symposium, or other similar academic meeting. They often include abstracts, reports of papers, or full-text papers submitted by participants and published in a variety of formats, such as books, journals, special issues, or standalone proceedings.
Extrica's approach to conference proceedings is defined by the following principles:
- Conference proceedings are regarded as publications that constitute important contributions to the scholarly record.
- Only peer-reviewed conference proceedings are eligible for publication.
- Conference proceedings must originate from an academic meeting associated with a defined place or places (including online or hybrid formats) and a defined time.
Peer Review Process
All manuscripts submitted for inclusion in Extrica conference proceedings are subject to the same peer review standards, principles, and editorial procedures as research articles submitted to Extrica journals, as set out in Extrica's Peer Review Policy.
The peer review of conference submissions is coordinated by the appointed Proceedings Editor(s), who exercise full editorial responsibility in accordance with Extrica's established editorial workflow. Conference organizers may provide administrative support where appropriate but do not replace or override the editorial role.
General Peer Review Principles
All conferences published by Extrica are expected to adhere to the following principles:
- Authors, editors, and reviewers are required to comply with applicable Extrica's policies.
- Each manuscript should, where feasible, be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Where this standard cannot be met, the Proceedings Editor must document the reasons and the safeguards applied.
- Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation for each manuscript, supported by substantive comments that justify their assessment.
- Editors may only accept manuscripts for publication where reviewer feedback provides clear and sufficient support for acceptance.
Evaluation Criteria
In assessing submissions, editors and reviewers are expected to consider, as appropriate to the discipline, the following criteria:
- The originality and novelty of the research question and whether the work advances existing knowledge.
- The clarity, structure, and overall quality of the presentation.
- The scientific and technical soundness of the study design, methodology, and analysis.
- The relevance and interest of the findings to the intended readership of the proceedings.
- The overall scholarly merit of the work.
Editorial Authority and Independence
Each proceedings volume is overseen by an appointed Proceedings Editor and/or Guest Editor(s) with appropriate subject-matter expertise.
Proceedings Editors and Guest Editors have full authority to make independent editorial decisions. Editorial decisions must be based solely on scholarly merit, relevance to the proceedings scope, and the outcome of peer review, and must not be influenced by sponsors, conference organizers, or other third parties.
Editorial decisions must be free from discrimination or bias based on authors' institutional affiliation, nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, gender, religion, or other personal characteristics.
Extrica's Role
Extrica provides administrative, technological, and operational support for the proceedings publication process, including submission systems, peer review infrastructure, and publication services.
Extrica does not interfere with editorial decisions relating to individual submissions but reserves the right to verify compliance with this policy and applicable ethical standards.
Role of the Advisory Board
The Advisory Board provides strategic and academic guidance on the development, scope, and reputation of Extrica conference proceedings. Advisory Board members do not participate in editorial decision-making and do not handle manuscripts, select reviewers, or influence acceptance or rejection decisions.
Advisory Boards for conference proceedings published by Extrica provide strategic and academic oversight to support editorial integrity, ethical compliance, and the overall scientific quality of the proceedings.
Advisory Board members may advise on the scope and academic positioning of the conference proceedings, review and endorse the applied peer review framework, and provide guidance on ethical or integrity-related matters when requested. Their role is consultative and supervisory in nature and is intended to safeguard alignment with Extrica's editorial standards, international best practices, and COPE guidance.
Operational responsibility for coordinating submissions and peer review rests with the appointed Proceedings Editor(s) and/or Guest Editor(s), with support from the Scientific Committee and conference organizers as appropriate. Final editorial decisions, including acceptance or rejection, rest exclusively with the appointed Proceedings Editor(s) and/or Guest Editor(s).
Role of Conference Organizing Committees
Conference organizing committees are responsible for planning and delivering the academic meeting.
They must not exercise final decision-making authority over manuscript acceptance or rejection for publication in the proceedings.
Where members of a conference organizing or scientific committee also serve in an editorial capacity, this dual role must be transparently disclosed and managed in accordance with this policy. Appropriate measures, including recusal and reassignment of manuscripts, must be applied to ensure independent editorial handling.
Role of the Scientific Committee
The Scientific Committee is responsible for the scientific quality and academic integrity of the conference content. Its role is comparable to that of an editorial board in a scholarly journal. In particular, the Scientific Committee:
- conducts the peer review of conference submissions;
- recommends qualified and independent peer reviewers;
- assesses the scientific merit, originality, and relevance of submissions; and
The peer review activities of the Scientific Committee are conducted under the oversight of the appointed Proceedings Editor(s). The Scientific Committee does not make final publication decisions. Final responsibility for acceptance, rejection, and editorial outcomes rests with the appointed Proceedings Editor(s).
Members of the Scientific Committee may submit manuscripts to the conference proceedings. In such cases, the Scientific Committee member must not be involved in the peer review, reviewer selection, or editorial decision-making for their own submission, or for any submission where a conflict of interest exists. The manuscript must be handled by an independent Proceedings Editor or Guest Editor. Reviewers must be independent and free of conflicts of interest, including not being from the same institution (where feasible) as the author(s), not being recent collaborators, and not having personal or financial relationships that could compromise impartiality.
Conflicts of Interest
A conflict of interest arises where personal, professional, institutional, or financial interests could compromise, or reasonably be perceived to compromise, impartial judgment.
All individuals involved in the editorial and peer review process, including Proceedings Editors, Guest Editors, members of the Scientific Committee (where involved in peer review), and reviewers, must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before handling manuscripts.
Editors must not handle manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest, including where they are authors, recent collaborators, institutional colleagues, conference conveners, or have personal or financial relationships with the authors. In such cases, the manuscript must be reassigned to an independent editor.
Reviewers must recuse themselves where a conflict of interest exists and inform the editor so that an alternative reviewer can be appointed.
All disclosures, recusals, and reassignments must be documented to ensure transparency, accountability, and auditability.
Publication Ethics and Author Disclosures
Manuscripts submitted for inclusion in Extrica conference proceedings must meet high standards of publication ethics, in accordance with Extrica's Ethics and Malpractice Statement.
Submissions must report original work that has not been previously published or submitted elsewhere, unless clearly disclosed and justified.
Manuscripts must not contain plagiarized material or reuse text from other sources without appropriate citation.
Research involving human or animal subjects must have been conducted in accordance with generally accepted ethical and regulatory standards.
Authors must disclose any financial or personal conflicts of interest in a dedicated statement. Where no conflicts exist, authors must explicitly state that no competing interests are declared.
Submissions may be subject to plagiarism screening and other research integrity checks.
