Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement
Machine Learning for Health (ML4H) Symposium is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All articles not in accordance with these standards will be removed from the proceedings if malpractice is discovered at any time.
(Double-Blind review process) All the manuscripts submitted to ML4H Symposium undergo a double-blind peer-review process. Papers will be assigned to independent referees and meta-reviewers whose areas of expertise match the manuscript’s keywords. Referees and meta-reviewers are selected by the editors and are scientific researchers or specialists in the field who will access the paper for its accuracy, originality, and contribution to the field. The review process includes an author response period and a consensus-building discussion period. ML4H Symposium reserves the right to solicit additional reviews during the review period in the rare case that there are not sufficient high-quality reviews to make a final decision.
(Mentorship programs) The organizing committee of each edition of the Symposium could arrange a Submission Mentorship program and Review Mentorship program with the overall goal of improving submission quality and the quality of the review process, respectively.
(Handling of unethical publishing behaviour) In cases of scientific misconduct, fraudulent publication or plagiarism, the editors, in close collaboration with the publisher, will take all appropriate measures to clarify the situation and, in the most severe case, retract the article in question.
(Copyright and Licensing) Authors have to grant a Creative Commons copyright license in the article to the general public, in particular, a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is further specified at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode (human-readable summary at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ).
(Authors fee) At least one presenting author of accepted works must register for the symposium. To promote community interaction and to foster participation for all, the registration fee is set at the bare minimum and is different for students and non-students. The registration fee for the 2022 edition is available on Eventbrite.
Responsibilities of Authors
(Scientific conduct) Authors are responsible for their scientific conduct. Fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism of paper submissions or research presentations, including demos, exhibits or posters constitute unethical behaviour that represents a violation of the Code of Conduct and is unacceptable.
(Anonymization and Copyright) Authors are responsible for ensuring the proper anonymisation of their papers according to the guidelines provided by the organizing committee. Malformed, non-blinded, out of scope or grossly insufficient works may be desk rejected without undergoing additional review.
Papers that are submitted to the ML4H proceedings track cannot be already published or under review in any other archival venue. Similarly, papers published in the ML4H proceedings cannot be published again later at any other venue.
(Ethics Board Approval) Authors are responsible for evaluating if their research requires Institutional Review Board (IRB) (or equivalent) approval. If their research requires IRB (or equivalent) approval or has been evaluated by your IRB as Not Human Subject Research, then the camera-ready version of the paper must include relevant ethics approval information. In case their research does not require IRB approval, authors have to explicitly state this to be the case and provide a justification.
(Data and code) Authors are encouraged to submit code and data as supplemental material starting from the review process. If they cannot share the code, they must explicitly state that they are not making their code available.
Responsibilities of Reviewers
(Conflict of interest) Reviewers must abandon the review process if they become aware of a conflict of interests resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers. Reviewers must report the conflict of interest to the editors.
(Confidentiality) Reviewers must treat the papers they receive as confidential documents. Ideas, results, text, images and any kind of supplementary materials must be kept confidential and cannot be used for personal advantage.
(Independence and Expertise) Reviewers are responsible for evaluating any manuscripts received for review in an objective and independent way. Reviewers must provide actionable, constructive, and respectful feedback to the authors that will help them improve the work, both through positive recognition of the paper’s strengths and targeted commentary on opportunities for improvement. Reviewers who feel unqualified to review the research described in any assigned manuscripts must report it to the editors and they should abandon the review process.