enter search term and/or author name
Submissions to POMACS should follow the ethics review policies of the relevant institutions, countries, and funding bodies. The online submission forms for POMACS include a tickbox allowing authors to quickly self-certify if this was done (and no paper will be accepted for review where this box is not ticked). Reviewers should NOT take it upon themselves to comment on the ethics of the methodologies of papers under review, and must not e.g. penalize a paper because it would have failed their own ethics process. If a reviewer has strong reason to believe that this box was incorrectly ticked they should report it to the Associate Editor.
POMACS employs a single-blind review system. Submissions to POMACS should include full author names and affiliations, which will be revealed to reviewers. The identities of reviewers and Associate Editors will remain hidden from the authors.
Except in cases of a conflict of interest, the Editors and the Associate Editor for a paper will know the identity of the reviewers. However, reviewer identities will normally be kept anonymous from each other and from other members of the Editorial Board.
POMACS follows the ACM policy and procedures on plagiarism (which includes self-plagiarism). As set out by that policy, it is in an author’s best interest to always cite prior work by themselves or others, as this will avoid misperceptions of plagiarism or self-plagiarism. Reviewers should flag any incidence of suspected plagiarism or self-plagiarism to the Associate Editor. If the Associate Editor reject a paper for plagiarism or self-plagiarism, they should inform the Editors, who shall be responsible for deciding whether to take the case further (e.g. reporting it to the ACM).
The most relevant background should be always cited by a paper. This includes the author’s own prior publications or similar simultaneously submitted work. Relevant self-references must never be omitted or cited as "blank for blind review" for the purposes of anonymization or any other reason. This includes citations to works that are not yet available to the general public. If something with overlapping contribution (even a minor overlap) is under simultaneous submission elsewhere, then it must be cited (as “In submission to…” or “To appear in…”) and a copy provided to the reviewers (using the supplemental item fields on the submission form, or via the editors). This enables reviewers to consider the novelty of the contributions with respect to one another.
POMACS’s policy is consistent with the relevant ACM policies on Prior Publication and Simultaneous Submissions and Pre-Publication Evaluation.
A document in the ACM Digital Library or equivalent formal repository is technically a prior publication for the purposes of review. This includes (but is not limited to) proceedings of workshops, extended abstracts, conferences or journals – anything published in a formal repository. It excludes technical reports and papers that are simply posted on websites. The Editors should be consulted if it is not clear whether a paper is regarded as being part of a formal repository.
If a paper makes significant amplifying contributions to prior publication(s) by the same authors, then the reviewers should consider the total contribution (i.e., as if the prior publication(s) did not exist), rather than just the added contribution, when deciding whether to accept the paper. The level of significance is up to the reviewers and Associate Editors to decide. The following are examples of criteria that may be taken into account:
Note that if none of the above apply, but a paper still makes significant contribution over prior work, then it may still be accepted on the basis of those contributions alone.
The described policy is meant to codify existing common reviewing practice, in which early versions of work published in venues such as workshops or as extended abstracts (e.g., accompanying a demo) are not regarded as affecting the contribution level (e.g., the novelty of the core idea) of subsequent mature submissions. It deliberately does not rely on the definitions of “archival” used in the past (since digital publishing has blurred this line), nor on a distinction between workshops and conferences/journals (since the quality bars can overlap).
POMACS does not permit simultaneous submission of work with identical contributions to any other publication that is part of a formal repository.
Someone has a conflict of interest with a paper if that person:
A person who has a conflict of interest with a paper must not (a) have any influence on the paper throughout the review process, or (b) ever find out who is involved with reviewing the paper. This includes Editors. The non-conflicted Editors should be consulted if any clarification is required.
ACM has published Fair Use Guidelines for authors whose manuscripts include third-party material. Please read them here: http://www.acm.org/publications/guidance-for-authors-on-fair-use
ACM has a new Author Representations Policy, which may be found at: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/author_representations.