Differences between revisions 3 and 4
⇤ ← Revision 3 as of 2013-09-02 11:22:17 →
Size: 2462
Editor: superuser
Comment:
← Revision 4 as of 2013-09-02 11:23:18 → ⇥
Size: 2538
Editor: superuser
Comment:
Deletions are marked like this. Additions are marked like this.
Line 2: Line 2:
The following is the ACL policy on conflicts of interest in reviewing and accepting conference submissions. '''needs checking'''
----
Line 4: Line 5:
 1. A person is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a paper submitted to an ACL conference if The following is the EACL policy on conflicts of interest in reviewing and accepting conference submissions.

 1. A person is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a paper submitted to an EACL conference if
Line 21: Line 24:
 1. In the interpretation of this policy and these procedures, if there is any doubt as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, chairs and reviewers are advised to be cautious. The ACL Executive may be asked for its opinion on specific cases.  1. In the interpretation of this policy and these procedures, if there is any doubt as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, chairs and reviewers are advised to be cautious. The EACL Executive may be asked for its opinion on specific cases.
Line 23: Line 26:
http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conflict-of-interest_policy ----
[[http://aclweb.org/adminwiki/index.php?title=Conflict-of-interest_policy|ACL: Conflict of interest policy]]

needs checking

The following is the EACL policy on conflicts of interest in reviewing and accepting conference submissions.

  1. A person is deemed to have a conflict of interest in a paper submitted to an EACL conference if
    1. he or she is a (co-)author of the paper; or
    2. one or more of the authors of the paper:
      1. is, or has been in the previous five years, a student of that person, or
      2. has co-authored a paper or collaborated with that person in the previous five years, or
      3. is employed at the same institution as that person.
    3. any other circumstances create an appearance that the person might have a bias in the evaluation of the paper.
  2. No person shall review or participate in the acceptance decision of any paper in which he or she has a conflict of interest.
  3. The identity of the reviewers of a paper shall be withheld from all people who have a conflict of interest in that paper.

The following are the procedures that must be followed for avoidance of conflicts of interest in reviewing and accepting conference submissions.

  1. If a program committee (co-)chair has a conflict of interest in a paper, a different co-chair must assign that paper to an area chair. If there is only a single program chair, the general chair of the conference shall assign it.
  2. A paper shall not be assigned to an area chair or to a reviewer who has a conflict of interest in it.
  3. If an area chair or reviewer is inadvertently assigned a paper in which he or she has a conflict of interest, he or she must immediately declare the fact and return the paper.
  4. Reviewing procedures and software shall be organized in such a manner as to prevent any person from seeing non-anonymized reviews of any paper in which he or she has a conflict of interest.
  5. Reviewing procedures and software and program committee discussions and meetings shall be organized in such a manner as to prevent any person from participating in or observing any discussion relating to the acceptance decision of any paper in which he or she has a conflict of interest.
  6. In the interpretation of this policy and these procedures, if there is any doubt as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists, chairs and reviewers are advised to be cautious. The EACL Executive may be asked for its opinion on specific cases.

ACL: Conflict of interest policy

eacl: Conflict of interest policy (last edited 2013-10-09 13:43:45 by superuser)