Research and publishing integrity

How the record is kept honest, and what happens when it is not.

Publication ethics and malpractice

What SET Proceedings expects of authors, reviewers and editors, and what happens when those expectations are not met.

The standards we work to

The editorial policies of SET Proceedings are written to follow the COPE Code of Conduct for COPE Members and the COPE Core Principles, and the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published jointly by COPE, DOAJ, OASPA and WAME. Where a case is not covered here, we follow the relevant COPE flowcharts.

Caravel Press follows COPE's guidance and is not currently a member. The member directory is at the COPE member directory.

What we expect of authors

The work is original, is not published elsewhere, and is not under consideration elsewhere.
Every author meets the four authorship conditions set out in this policy, and everyone who meets them is listed.
Data and results are real, and are reported as they were obtained. Figures are not manipulated to change what they show.
Sources are cited, including the authors' own earlier work. Reusing your own text without citation is still undisclosed reuse.
All competing interests are declared, including those of every co-author. Funding is declared where the authors give it; the statement is optional.
Research involving people, animals or identifiable data was approved by the appropriate body before it began, and the approval is named in the paper.

What we expect of reviewers

A manuscript under review is confidential. It is not shared, quoted, or used in the reviewer's own work.
A reviewer who has a competing interest declines the invitation and says why.
Reviews address the work, not the authors, and give reasons that an author can act on.
Manuscripts are not entered into any generative AI system. See the generative AI policy.

What we expect of editors

Decisions are made on the scholarly merit of the work and on nothing else.
An editor with a competing interest in a submission takes no part in its handling, and the submission is reassigned.
Author identity is not visible to reviewers, and reviewer identity is not visible to authors.
Editorial independence is absolute. No commercial, institutional or personal relationship influences a decision.

Submissions from editors and board members

Members of the editorial board and of the conference committees may submit. Their papers are reviewed in the same way as every other, and they take no part in the handling of, or the decision on, their own paper.

Misconduct

An allegation of misconduct is taken seriously wherever it comes from, including anonymously, and is assessed on evidence rather than on the standing of the person making it.

We look first
The editorial office establishes what is actually being alleged and gathers the record: the submission, the reviews, the correspondence and the published version.
We ask the authors
The corresponding author is told what has been raised and is given a reasonable opportunity to respond in writing before any conclusion is reached.
We escalate where it belongs
Where a matter concerns how research was conducted rather than how it was reported, it is referred to the authors' institution, which has the standing to investigate it. We do not attempt to investigate research conduct ourselves.
We correct the record
Where the published record is wrong, it is corrected, marked with an expression of concern, or retracted. See the corrections and retractions policy.

Cases are handled following the relevant COPE flowcharts. The outcome is communicated to the person who raised the matter.

Authorship

SET Proceedings applies the ICMJE authorship criteria. An author is someone who meets all four conditions: substantial contribution to conception, design, acquisition, analysis or interpretation; drafting or critically revising the work; approval of the final version; and agreement to be accountable for its accuracy and integrity.

From SET2027, contributions are recorded on every published paper using CRediT (ANSI/NISO Z39.104-2022), so a reader can see what each named author actually did. Papers in SET2026 carry them where the authors supplied them. Contributors who do not meet all four conditions are named in the acknowledgements with their contribution described.

Guest, gift and honorary authorship are not permitted.
Ghost authorship is not permitted. Anyone who wrote part of the paper is named.
The author list is fixed at submission. Any change afterwards requires written agreement from every author, including the one being added or removed, and a reason the editor accepts.
A generative AI system cannot be an author. See the generative AI policy.

Competing interests

From SET2027, every submission carries a competing interests statement covering every author, and a paper cannot be submitted without one. Papers in SET2026 carry one where the authors supplied it. Where there is nothing to declare, the paper says so explicitly rather than leaving the field out. Financial and non-financial interests are both declarable: employment, consultancy, funding, patents, shareholdings, and personal or professional relationships that a reasonable reader might think could have influenced the work.

Permanent address

Research integrity

Data, reporting standards, research ethics approval, funding and preprints.

Data availability

From SET2027, every paper submitted to SET Proceedings carries a data availability statement, and a paper cannot be submitted without one. Where there is no underlying data, or the data cannot be shared, the statement says so and says why. Papers in SET2026 carry one where the authors supplied it.

Authors are strongly encouraged to deposit the data behind a paper in a recognised repository and to cite it with its own persistent identifier, following the FAIR data principles: findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable.

Reporting standards

Where a recognised reporting guideline exists for the study design, authors are expected to follow it and to submit the completed checklist. The current guidelines are collected by the EQUATOR Network.

Randomised trials: CONSORT 2025.
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA.
Research involving animals: the ARRIVE guidelines.

Research ethics approval

Research involving human participants, human material or identifiable human data must have been approved by a properly constituted research ethics committee before it began, and must have been conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki (2024). The paper must name the approving body and quote the approval reference.

Informed consent must have been obtained from every participant. Where an individual is identifiable in any part of the paper, including an image, written consent to publication is required and must be available to the editor on request.

Research involving animals must have been approved by the relevant body and must be reported in accordance with the ARRIVE guidelines.

An editor may ask to see the approval documentation at any point, before or after publication. A submission that cannot produce it will not be published.

Funding

A funding statement is optional. Where one is given it names every source of support, with grant numbers where they exist and the funder identified by its ROR identifier where one is available, and it is printed on the paper and deposited with Crossref.

A funder has no role in the design of a study, in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data, in the writing of the paper, or in the decision to submit it. Where a funder has had any such role, it must be described in the funding statement.

Similarity screening

Every submission to SET Proceedings is screened for plagiarism before review.

Preprints

Posting a preprint before submission is permitted and encouraged. It is not prior publication. Authors should disclose the preprint at submission and give its DOI, and should update the preprint record with a link to the published version once the paper appears.

Permanent address

Generative AI

Where AI tools may and may not be used, by authors, by reviewers and by editors.

The standards we follow

SET Proceedings follows the COPE position statement on authorship and AI tools and section II.A.4 of the ICMJE Recommendations.

Authors

A generative AI system cannot be an author. Authorship carries accountability, and a tool cannot be accountable.
Authors may use AI tools to improve the language and readability of a manuscript. Doing so must be declared, in a statement naming the tool and describing what it was used for.
AI tools must not be used to generate or alter data, results, figures or images.
Authors remain fully responsible for the content of their paper, including anything an AI tool contributed to it, and for any citation it produced.

Reviewers and editors

Reviewers must not upload any part of a manuscript to a generative AI system. A manuscript under review is confidential, and uploading it is a breach of that confidence.
Editors must not use a generative AI system to reach or draft an editorial decision.

This policy applies to the tools as they are today. It will be revised as the position of COPE and the ICMJE develops, and the date of the current version is shown at the foot of this page.

Permanent address

Corrections and retractions

How the published record is put right when something in it is wrong.

The principle

A published paper is a permanent record. It is never quietly edited, replaced or removed. Where something in it is wrong, the correction is itself published, is linked to the paper from both directions, and carries its own DOI, so that anyone who has the original also finds the correction.

Correcting the record is a sign that a journal is working, not that it has failed. Web of Science states that journals are not penalised for issuing retractions. We would rather publish a retraction than leave a wrong result standing.

The four instruments

Correction
For an error that affects a part of the paper but not its conclusions. A typographical error in an equation, a mislabelled figure, a missing funder. The paper is amended, the amendment is described, and the date is recorded.
Expression of concern
For a serious concern that has been raised but not yet resolved, where readers should be told while an investigation proceeds. It is withdrawn or replaced by a correction or retraction once the matter is settled.
Retraction
For findings that are unreliable, whether through honest error or misconduct, and for plagiarism, redundant publication, unethical research, or unauthorised use of material. The paper remains available, clearly watermarked as retracted, with a retraction notice stating who retracted it and why.
Removal
Used only where leaving the paper available would itself cause harm or break the law, for example defamation or a serious breach of privacy. The metadata and a note remain so the citation still resolves.

Which instrument applies is decided following the COPE retraction guidelines.

How a correction reaches a reader

The notice is published as its own item with its own the DOI system, and is free to read.
The original paper links to the notice, and the notice links to the original paper.
The change is deposited with Crossref, so every index and reference manager that reads Crossref learns of it.

Asking for a correction

Anyone may ask for a correction, including a reader who is not an author of the paper. Write to [email protected] with the paper DOI and what you believe is wrong. You will be told what has been decided and why.

Permanent address

Complaints and appeals

How to appeal a decision, and how to complain about the series itself.

Appealing an editorial decision

An author may appeal any editorial decision, including a desk rejection. Write to [email protected] within 30 days of the decision, quoting the reference number, and set out specifically what in the assessment you believe is mistaken.

An appeal must engage with the reasons given. A restatement of the paper's importance is not an appeal. New data, a correction of a factual error in a review, or evidence that a reviewer misunderstood the method all are.

Acknowledged within five working days
You are told the appeal has been received and who is handling it.
Considered by someone who did not decide
The appeal is assessed by an editor who took no part in the original decision. Further independent review may be sought.
Answered in writing
You receive a reasoned decision. The decision of the editor-in-chief on an appeal is final, and there is one appeal per submission.

An appeal does not hold the manuscript. You are free to submit elsewhere at any point, and should tell us if you do.

Complaining about the series

Complaints about the conduct of the series, its staff, its editors or its processes go to the editorial office at [email protected], and are acknowledged within five working days.

Where a complaint concerns the editor-in-chief, or where the complainant is not satisfied with the answer, it is escalated to the publisher at [email protected], which will respond independently of the series.

Where a complaint cannot be resolved between us, it may be taken to COPE flowcharts for guidance, or raised with the authors' or complainant's institution where that is the appropriate forum.

These policies apply to every journal we publish. Last revised 19 October 2026.