Introduction

This statement outlines the ethical behavior expectations for all parties involved in the publication process for The Nordic Conference on Computational Linguistics (NoDaLiDa), including authors, reviewers, and the editorial board. We adhere to the highest standards of ethical conduct in every aspect of conference publication.

Vancouver Convention on authorship

The Vancouver Group are the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), who in 1985 introduced a set of criteria for authorship. The criteria have seen many updates over the years, to match the latest developments in research and publishing. Their scope far surpasses the topic of authorship, and spans across the scientific publication process: reviewing, editorial work, publishing, copyright, and the like.

NoDaLiDa expects all submissions’ author lists to include all and only relevant authors, following the ICMJE recommendations.

The ICMJE recommends that authorship be based on the following four criteria:

Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
Drafting the work or revising it critically for important intellectual content; AND
Final approval of the version to be published; AND
Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

All those designated as authors should meet all four criteria for authorship, and all who meet the four criteria should be identified as authors. Those who do not meet all four criteria should be acknowledged.

These authorship criteria are intended to reserve the status of authorship for those who deserve credit and can take responsibility for the work. The criteria are not intended for use as a means to disqualify colleagues from authorship who otherwise meet authorship criteria by denying them the opportunity to meet criteria 2 or 3.

Conflicts of interest

NoDaLiDa offers a high degree of anonymity during review. This means it is possible for sitting board members to be co-authors on submissions. However, the following rules apply:

No person with a conflict-of-interest with an author may have influence over or observe the decision making process for that author’s submissions.

NoDaLiDa follows TACL in using the definition of conflict-of-interest (COI) set forth by the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), namely, a person has a COI with a submitted paper if that person:

is a co-author of the paper; or
has been a student or supervisor of one of the authors in the previous five years; or
has co-authored a paper or collaborated with one of the authors in the previous five years; or
is employed at the same company or institution as an author; or
has any other circumstances that could cause a bias in evaluating the paper.

Ethical oversight

Policy on consent to publication

All persons named in a publication must be aware of the publication’s existence and have consented to their name being used in connection with the publication. This includes offering them a copy of the final manuscript (minus other people’s names) to review, so that they can give informed consent over what they are being named in.

Policy on research on vulnerable populations

Research on vulnerable populations is in general only welcome at NoDaLiDa if a member of that population has been included in the design and conduct of the research in an authoritative position, and also receives prominent placement in the authorship list, commensurate with their contribution. Research on vulnerable populations that was not conducted in collaboration with researcher from those populations should not be submitted to NoDaLiDa.

Policy on ethical conduct of research using animals

Research using animals is not welcome at NoDaLiDa.

Policy on ethical conduct of research using human subjects

Research using human subjects is only welcome at NoDaLiDa if they have given informed consent to being used in the study, and are demonstrably compensated for their work at the rate of the living wage in the researcher’s country or higher. Please retain documentation of this payment rate in case the editors ask for it.

Policy on handling confidential data

Confidential data – except author names and affiliations – must not be submitted to NoDaLiDa and will not knowingly be published or publishable at NoDaLiDa. In GDPR terms, “confidential data” can be interpreted as Sensitive Personal Data.

Overseeing authority

NoDaLiDa operates under the Northern European Association for Language Technology, NEALT.

Complaint and malpractice handling

Complaints are in the first instance to be sent to the NoDaLiDa general chair, using the email addresses on the NoDaLiDa contact page. Complaints about the NoDaLiDa general chair can be sent to members of the NEALT executive board.

NoDaLiDa will acknowledge the complaint as soon as possible and progress the case with weekly updates, aiming for a resolution within six weeks of receipt.

NoDaLiDa may refer concerns of a harassing, offensive, threatening, or defamatory manner to legal counsel or other appropriate authorities. Complaints made in such language will not be investigated.

If the investigation finds that the concern is valid, follow the appropriate COPE guidance for dealing with the issue.

The correspondent’s right to anonymity is respected, and their identity will not be revealed to the party facing concerns without the correspondent’s explicit permission.

When the investigation is closed, the complainant will be informed of the action NoDaLiDa takes.

NoDaLiDa defers to the recommended COPE processes on complaint handling.

Policy on Publishing Ethics

NoDaLiDa follows the COPE guidelines on handling allegations of unethical practice, following TACL, and currently also follows TACL guidelines in general.

Plagiarism or redundant (duplicate) publication:

COPE Council. Suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Version 2, November 2018. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.1; link to flowchart
COPE Council. Suspected plagiarism in a published manuscript. Version 2. 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.2; link to flowchart
COPE Council. Suspected redundant publication in a submitted manuscript. Version 2. 2015. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.12; link to flowchart
COPE Council. Suspected redundant publication in a published manuscript. Version 2. 2015. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.13; link to flowchart

Research Fraud:

COPE Council. Suspected fabricated data in a submitted manuscript. Version 2. 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.3; link to flowchart
COPE Council. Suspected fabricated data in a published manuscript. Version 2. 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.4; link to flowchart

Reviewer or editor misconduct during the review process:

COPE Council. What to do if you (an author) suspect a reviewer has appropriated a submission’s idea or data. Version 2. 2013. https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.2.5; link to flowchart

Conclusion

NoDaLiDa is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractices. All authors submitting their works to the conference for publication as original articles attest that the submitted works represent their authors’ contributions and have not been copied or plagiarized in whole or in part from other works.

Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice Statement for the NoDaLiDa conferences