Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

EWSN is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. EWSN's Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement is based, in large part, on existing Elsevier policies and COPE’s Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (For more information, please visit COPE's website:

All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the proceedings if malpractice is discovered. EWSN is checking all papers in a double-blind peer review process, including checks for plagiats and research fabrication (making up research data); falsification (manipulation of existing research data, tables, or images) and improper use of humans or animals in research. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing. EWSN reserves the right to use plagiarism detecting software to screen submitted papers at all times.

Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Reviewers, and the Publisher. In particular:

1. Obligations of Authors
  • A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
  • The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Submitting the same manuscript to more than one publication concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
  • Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the reported work.
  • All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
2. Obligations of Reviewers
  • All submitted papers are subject to double-blind review process by at least three international reviewers that are knowledgeable in the area of the paper.
  • The factors that are taken into account in review are relevance, significance, originality, readability and language.
  • The possible decisions include acceptance or rejection.
  • Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  • The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism.
  • The reviewers evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • The reviewers must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
  • Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
  • Manuscripts received for review are treated as confidential documents and are reviewed by anonymous staff.
  • A reviewer should also call to the publisher's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.