DRS Biennial Conferences: Publication Ethics and Publication Malpractice
This document outlines the publication ethics, malpractice guidelines, copyright terms, and open access policies for Design Research Society (DRS) biennial conferences. It establishes duties and standards for authors, reviewers, and programme committees regarding peer review, conflicts of interest, plagiarism, and editorial impartiality. Additionally, it specifies that published papers are distributed under a Creative Commons open access license while copyright is retained by the authors.
Summary and content fields are drawn from the document text and are pending editorial review.
Who issued it
Who it governs
Authors, reviewers, and programme committee members involved with Design Research Society conferences should read this to understand ethical standards and publishing procedures.
What the document contains
The document covers research and publication ethics, peer review procedures, authorship criteria, plagiarism policies, conflict of interest disclosures, and open access copyright terms for DRS conference publications.
The document contains no specific guidance or mentions regarding artificial intelligence systems, automated decision-making, or robot fleets despite the title metadata.
- DRS Conferences adhere strictly to COPE guidelines and principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.
- Articles are published open access under a Creative Commons license, with copyright retained by the authors.
- The editorial process involves a rigorous double-blind peer review managed by the programme committee.
- Authors must ensure originality, disclose conflicts of interest, retain raw data for at least ten years, and avoid plagiarism and self-plagiarism.
- Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, conduct objective reviews, and declare any conflicts of interest.
· 1. Research and Publication Ethics · 2. Copyright Notice and Licensing · 3. Programme Committee Code of Conduct · 4. Editorial Process · 5. Ethical Guidelines for Authors · 6. Reviewers’ Ethics and Responsibilities · 7. Open Access Policy · 8. Legal Notice
How it scores
Each score is backed by a quote verified against the document text. Editorial review has not yet confirmed them.
Accountability
4/5Clear responsibility for AI outcomes
Agree to take responsibility and be accountable for the contents of the article and to share the responsibility to resolve any questions raised about the accuracy or integrity of the published work.
5.4
screening score · 2026-10-23
Fairness
3/5Non-discrimination and equitable treatment
All submissions to be considered for publication in DRS conferences are expected to meet standards of academic excellence and are subject to rigorous, well-established, fair, and unbiased double-blind peer-review performed by professionals.
4.2.1
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Dignity
0/5Respect for the inherent worth of persons
screening score · 2026-10-23
Human Oversight
0/5Humans remain in control of consequential decisions
screening score · 2026-10-23
Privacy
3/5Protection of personal data and private life
provided that the confidentiality of the participants can be protected and legal rights concerning proprietary data do not preclude their release.
5.1.2
screening score · 2026-10-23
Transparency
4/5Openness about how AI systems work and are used
DRS Conferences abides by the COPE's Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.
1.2
screening score · 2026-10-23
Enforcement
4/5Consequences and compliance mechanisms with real force
In case of plagiarism, the manuscript is rejected, and necessary action is taken in line with the Publication Ethics Guidelines.
5.1.3
screening score · 2026-10-23
Impact Assessment
3/5Required assessment of an AI system's risks/impacts before or during use
Programme committees have the discretion to seek amendments prior to peer review, reject a submission, or continue with the peer review process.
4.1
screening score · 2026-10-23