Comparison of Publication Ethics Policies in IACR Documentation

Documentation of IACR Documentation (just the parts pertaining to ethics and publishing)

What relevant policy documents do we have? IACR Policy for the Ethics Committee IACR CiC Policy on publication ethics ToSC Publication Ethics TCHES Publication Ethics IACR Policy on Irregular Submissions IACR CiC Policy on irregular submissions IACR Guidelines for Reviewers Guidelines for J. Cryptology Referees IACR CiC Policy on conflict of interest IACR Policy on Conflicts of Interest IACR CiC Policy on retractions TCHES Retraction Policy Code of Conduct IACR Guidelines for Program Chairs

What are differences between these documents? Comparing the publication ethics documents: In Duties for Authors : ToSC has an extra section on Competing Interests that is very vague as to what it covers CiC has a different, stronger wording for anonymity: No information that allows to identify the authors vs. no identifying information . (seems like an impossible standard actually?) ToSC has an anonymity exception for special issues (like a past issue on NIST standardization) ToSC and TCHES have irregular submissions sections that are overlapping but not quite The same as the IACR policy on irregular submissions. CiC just points to the IACR policy on this. ToSC and CiC have sticky reviews sections. The ToSC section uses broad language: Thus IACR encourages authors to include response to reviews from previous IACR events

What are differences between these documents? Comparing the publication ethics documents: In Duties for Editors : ToSC has an extra section on editors as authors (due to large editorial board) CiC has extra language that Editorial Board members must not use unpublished information in their own research of which they learned in their role as board member. [Question: does eprint count as published here?] The corresponding wording for TCHES/ToSC is: Editors must not use unpublished information in their own research without properly citing corresponding work. CiC has extra language that reviews should provide constructive feedback CiC has extra language that a reviewer identity can be revealed to an author upon the reviewer s request for the purpose of crediting feedback that was impactful

What are differences between these documents? Comparing the publication ethics documents: CiC has added language that Honorary authorship is considered as scientific misconduct CiC has unique wording on errata/retractions: We will thoroughly examine any such information And if appropriate encourage the authors of the article in question to publish an errata (unique in that it is up to the authors) (though note this is separate from the retraction policy, which is a bit confusing)

What are differences between these documents? Comparing irregular submission policies: CiC has no exception for reuse of material in special cases [makes sense given the journal s goals] In contrast, IACR policy has: The simultaneous submission of the same material to a conference or workshop with proceedings and a journal is a special case that may not qualify as a double submission

What are differences between these documents? Comparing conflict of interests policies: CiC treats people from the same company but in different locations as a conflict, whereas IACR does not CiC has added language: In case of doubt, authors and reviewers have to disclose the situation to the Editors-in-Chief who will make a decision. CiC has added language: When an Editorial Board member has an automatic CoI with a paper, they may not see the paper or its reviews, comment on it, or vote to select it for any award CiC is missing implementation section from IACR policy IACR Implementation is missing a backup procedure for conflicts with the chairs/editors

What are things we should update? Ethics committee policy needs to be updated to name our other journals as in scope. (currently only lists Journal of Cryptology) Code of conduct needs update to have a backup for the General Chair when GC is conflicted and to include additional people to report to who will be trained/supervised by code of conduct liaison Ethics committee policy composition section needs to be updated in the pdf on the website IACR Guidelines for Reviewers should be updated to reflect the IACR Conflicts of Interest Policy IACR Guidelines for Reviewers ends in a sloppy paragraph that states some ACM docs contain more info that mostly applies also to the IACR

For updates/subsumptions, who has authority and who should be included in discussion? IACR Policy for the Ethics Committee IACR CiC Policy on publication ethics ToSC Publication Ethics TCHES Publication Ethics IACR Policy on Irregular Submissions IACR CiC Policy on irregular submissions IACR Guidelines for Reviewers Guidelines for J. Cryptology Referees IACR iC Policy on conflict of interest IACR Policy on Conflicts of Interest IACR CiC Policy on retractions TCHES Retraction Policy Code of Conduct IACR Guidelines for Program Chairs