Code of Ethics

Editorial and publishing policies

29th cromar congress

Code of Ethics

authors and ownership

Authors should present an accurate account of their work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain significant detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are therefore unacceptable. The expected duties of authors are:

▪ Agree with the conference’s open access policy, which allows unrestricted access and reuse of all published articles.
▪ Authors should retain the raw data of their submitted manuscripts in order to provide them for editorial review upon request by the editor or reviewer.
▪ Ensure that they have written an entirely original article, and if they have used the work of others, that citations or quotations are accurately referenced.
▪ Not to use plagiarism in any form. Plagiarism takes many forms, from passing off another’s paper as the author’s own, to copying or paraphrasing substantial parts of another’s paper without attribution, to claiming results from research conducted by others.
▪ Not to submit the same research to more than one primary publication. Submission of the same manuscript to multiple publications concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
▪ Make proper acknowledgment of the work of others.
▪ Limit authorship to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.
▪ Disclose any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed as influencing the results or interpretation of their manuscript.
▪ Notify the editor or the publisher upon discovering a significant error or inaccuracy in a published paper and take steps to retract or correct it.
▪ to use the publishers PDF if self-archiving the paper and to include a link to the publishers
website
▪ manuscripts must be edited in accordance with the submission guidelines of the proceedings.

Author rights in CROMAR congress proceedings proprietary:

▪ retain the rights to the unrestricted use of their research data
▪ receive proper attribution and credit for their published paper
▪ receive proper attribution and credit for their published paper
▪ use and share their works for scholarly purposes
▪ publicly share the accepted manuscript on non-commercial sites
▪ publicly share the final published article.

REVIEWERS

Expected duties and responsibilities of the reviewers are:

▪ to assist the editors in making editorial decisions and to assist the author in improving the paper.
▪ to notify the editors of the availability for prompt reviews.
▪ to handle the manuscripts as confidential documents.
▪ to conduct reviews objectively and express views clearly and with supporting arguments.
▪ to identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors.
▪ to inform the editor about any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript and any
other paper.
▪ not to use materials disclosed in a manuscript in their own research without the written consent
of the author.
▪ to keep privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review confidential.
▪ not to consider manuscripts in which they have a conflict of interest.

The reviewers should observe carefully the following criteria:

▪ Expertise: Papers are not always sent to a reviewer whose field is identical to the subject matter of that paper. You do not have to be precisely qualified in a field to be a constructive reviewer. In fact, quite the contrary, an excellent paper will speak beyond its narrowly defined field. However, if a paper is so distant from your field that you do not feel qualified to judge its merits, please return it to the publishing manager for the journal, who will locate another reviewer.
▪ Confidentiality: Reviewers receive unpublished work which must be treated as confidential until published. Reviewers must not disclose to others which papers they have reviewed; nor are they to share those papers with any other person.
▪ Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest or any other factor, which may affect their independence – for instance, if they have received a paper of a colleague or an intellectual opponent. In cases of conflict of interest, please notify the editorial team of your inability to review a particular paper.
▪ Intellectual Merit: A paper must be judged on its intellectual merits alone. Personal criticism or criticism based solely on the political or social views of the reviewer, is not acceptable.
▪ Full Explanation: Critical or negative judgments must be fully supported by detailed reference to evidence from the paper under review or other relevant sources.
▪ Plagiarism and Copyright: If a reviewer considers that a paper may contain plagiarism or that it might breach another partys copyright, they should notify the editors, providing the relevant citations to support their claim.
▪ Responsiveness: Reviewers are asked to return their reports within four weeks.

In addition, peer reviewers should be aware of all other detailed COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (https://publicationethics.org/files/cope-ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-v2_0.pdf) and use them in the review process.

Editor(s)-in-chief of the congress proceedings

Editor(s) are committed to fair and professional behaviour in all aspects of publishing operations to publish original high-quality papers that have value to the scientific community according to the highest possible standards. Accordingly, similar standards from the reviewers and authors are expected. Honesty, originality, and fair dealing on the part of authors, and fairness, objectivity and confidentiality on the part of editors and reviewers are among the critical values in achieving the set aim.

All submitted manuscripts are initially subject to evaluation by the Editorial-in-Chief. If they find the paper suitable, it will be sent for peer review by two independent and anonymous expert referees.

Editor(s) evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content, without regard to the race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. Submissions to the congress proceedings authored by the editors, the employees of the Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management and Faculty of Economics and Business, which are member of the Editorial board, Program or Organizing Committee members, will be ensured unbiased reviews. Contributions written by the editors, program or organizing committee members will be evaluated by a responsible editorial board member, who will select two reviewers, with the exception of employees of the FTHM or EFRI.

In conjunction with the publisher, the Editor(s)-in-chief should take reasonable, responsive measures when ethical complaints have been made concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper. Such measures will generally include contacting the authors of the manuscript or published paper and giving due consideration to the respective complaint or claims made, but may also include further communication to the relevant institutions and research bodies. If the complaint is upheld, the publication of a correction, retraction, expression of concern, or another relevant note has to be made. Every reported act of unethical publishing behaviour must be considered, even if it is discovered years after publication.

Editor(s)-in-chief should be accountable for everything published in the conference proceedings. This means that the editor(s)-in-chief should:

▪ strive to meet the needs of readers and authors
▪ have processes in place to assure the quality of the papers that will be published
▪ champion and encourage freedom of expression
▪ maintain the integrity of the academic record
▪ support initiatives to reduce academic misconduct
▪ inform researchers about publication ethics
▪ preclude business needs from compromising intellectual and ethical standards
▪ always be willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies when needed
▪ strive to constantly improve the quality of the conference proceedings.

Editor(s)-in-chief of the congress proceedings:

▪ are accountable and should take responsibility for everything they publish
▪ should make fair and unbiased decisions, independent of commercial considerations and should
ensure a fair and appropriate peer review process
▪ must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the
corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial members, and the publisher
▪ should adopt editorial policies that encourage maximum transparency and complete, honest
reporting
▪ ought to guard the integrity of the published record by issuing corrections and retractions when
needed and pursuing suspected or alleged research and publication misconduct
▪ should pursue reviewer and editorial misconduct
▪ need to make it clear to peer reviewers and authors what is expected of them
▪ must not use unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript in the editors own
research without the express written consent of the author
▪ keep confidential privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review and not use
them for personal advantage
▪ recuse her/himself from considering manuscripts in which he/she has conflicts of interest
resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the
authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers
▪ need to require all contributors to disclose relevant competing interests and publish corrections
if competing interests are revealed after publication. If needed, other appropriate action should
be taken, such as rejection, publication of a retraction or expression of concern
▪ should apply appropriate policies in place for handling editorial conflicts of interest, in
accordance with COPE guidelines
▪ need to take all responsible steps to ensure the quality of the material published, by having
systems in place to detect falsified data and basing decisions about the proceedings of the
conference on relevant evidence of factors that raise the quality of the conference.

Editor(s)in-Chief are obliged to consult the editorial board members to gauge their opinions about

the running of the conference proceedings, inform them of any changes to the policies of the

conference proceedings and identify future challenges.

Editors-in-Chief have the right to update the list of Editorial board members according to the needs

of the conference proceedings.

✦ 29th cromar congress ✦ November 13 and 14, 2025

EAT. SLEEP. MARKETING. REPEAT