This policy outlines a Conflict of Interest (COI) policy for ACM Publications. It describes what a COI is, who is responsible for being aware of such conflicts, how to manage COIs, and how to report violations.
Conflicts of Interest in publication are to be avoided because they raise questions about the quality, impartiality, and accuracy of published items, even when the parties involved believe they have been fair and impartial. Sometimes, a conflict will lead to an unconscious bias that can influence decisions, even if the parties involved believed they are objective. Thus, a credible COI policy cannot rely solely on individuals to make their own COI self-determinations.
This document provides specific guidelines for common instances with the goal of assisting in the process of identifying and resolving potential Conflicts of Interest. It also describes how the policy can be augmented, and how exceptions may be approved.
It is in the interest of all professionals — especially ACM members — to uphold the highest standards of professional, ethical behavior. Thus, this Policy is directly related to the ACM Code of Ethics. Violations of this policy will be referred to one or both of the ACM Publications Board (via the Committee on Ethics and Plagiarism) and the ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE).
This policy should be explicitly referenced in any call for papers or guide for submissions for those venues. For example, a call for papers could state, "Authors and reviewers will be asked to indicate their understanding and acceptance of the ACM Policy on Conflict of Interest in Publication when items are submitted and reviewed."
A COI occurs when a person’s objective judgment is — or is perceived by a reasonable observer to be — compromised by an existing relationship, affiliation, or connection to a person whose work they must evaluate.
The following are considered to be specific exemplars of relationships that produce COIs. Individuals in such relationships should not be involved in peer review of, or making editorial decisions about, ACM published materials provided by the related parties.
Personal or family relationships that would reasonably cause others to doubt impartiality.
All content evaluators, direct and indirect, bear primary responsibility for identifying and disclosing potential COIs in reviews; all content creators also bear responsibility for providing complete and honest information about COIs wherever requested.
Possible conflicts should be reported to the individual in charge of the venue involved (e.g., editor or program chair). In the case that the individual in charge is also conflicted, then conflicts can be reported to a predesignated alternate or to the ACM Director of Publications. A best practice would be for there to be one or more predesignated alternates identified and publicized in advance of any potential need for reporting.
If a potential conflict of interest is identified, the party or parties should note this, and then recuse themselves from any further deliberation or decision-making.
In cases where COIs are unavoidable (for example, in specialized communities with small reviewing pools), those conflicts should be fully disclosed to cognizant personnel (e.g., to editors, PC chairs, the Director of ACM Publications) who are in a position to advise, remediate, or mitigate any conflict. A COI can be managed in this way so long as the conflicted person is not directly responsible for decisions in the peer review process.
Double-blind reviewing may help to reduce — but not eliminate — COIs. Editors and program chairs may consider this as a practice but should also be aware it may raise other problems related to COIs.
In all cases of identified COIs, it is best practice for the alternate decision-maker to "blind" any conflicted parties (e.g., reviewers, editors) as to who has assumed their roles. If the conflicted party is in a lead decision-making role (e.g., EiC, PC chair), s/he should designate an appropriate colleague (e.g., Associate Editor, co-chair) to appoint another person to the decision-making role. Using this process, the third person remains anonymous from all conflicted parties, when feasible.
Senior reviewer (for example EiC, Program Chair) determines if there is a valid conflict and if so, reassigns any reviewer found to have a COI or who reports a potential COI. If the COI is alleged for the Editor or PC chair, the decision is delegated to an appropriate alternate, as per the above. Evaluation proceeds as usual.
Senior Reviewer (for example EiC, Program Chair) determines if reviews by conflicted reviewers influenced publication decision and may reopen the evaluation or remove the item from publication. If the COI is alleged for the Editor or PC chair, the decision is delegated to an appropriate alternate.
The matter should be reported for investigation (see below). After investigation, a determination that a COI existed for an item that has been published may result in the item being retracted or removed from the ACM Digital Library and replaced with a posted notation that a violation of COI policy was the reason.
In each of these cases, the outcome of the determination will be reported to the parties identifying the potential COI.
Knowingly and falsely asserting a COI — e.g., to prevent or alter peer reviewing, to discourage appropriate editorial oversight, or to seek disadvantage of another — is a violation of the ACM Code of Ethics and this policy.
Knowingly hiding or falsifying a stated COI is a violation of the ACM Code of Ethics and this policy.
Any violation of this policy should be reported (see below) for investigation by the Publications Board Ethics and Plagiarism Committee. A referral to the ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE) may also be made.
Alternate COI policies that differ from this one must be submitted to the ACM Director of Publications along with a detailed rationale. Requests will be reviewed, and if approved they must be published in advance of any application of that revised policy. Approved deviations can be applied at the SIG or conference level.
For example, a conference may seek a more restrictive COI policy by including as a COI cross-reviewing (reviewing or supervising reviews on an item for which the reviewer has a submission in the same venue on the same general topics), or increase the 2-year exclusion to 5 years.
A less restrictive policy than this one will only be considered in special cases, backed by extraordinary reasons. The request must explicitly describe how resulting COIs will be remediated.
Decisions by the Director of Publication regarding COI variations may be appealed to the Publications Board Committee on Ethics and Plagiarism, whose majority decision is final.
See also the discussion under "Managing A Conflict of Interest" about unavoidable, single deviations from the above examples.