PVLDB Publication Policies

Preamble

This document covers PVLDB publication policies, dealing with issues such as conflicts of interest, duplicate submissions, originality, plagiarism, errata, copyrights, retractions, external reviewers, and desk-rejects. For questions/comments on these policies, please contact the Managing Editor of PVLDB.

Policy on Conflict of Interest

Author A has a conflict with person X:

  • If A and X have worked in the same university, company or organization in the past two years, or will be doing so in the next six months on account of an accepted job offer. Different campuses do not count as the same university for this purpose — for example, UC Berkeley does not have a conflict with UC Santa Barbara.
  • If A and X have collaborated recently, as evidenced in a joint publication (paper--long or short, tutorial, book chapter, poster, demo) or jointly organized event (co-chairing the same conference/workshop/track) in the past two years, or are collaborating now.
  • If A is the PhD thesis advisor of X or vice versa, irrespective of how long ago this was.
  • If A is a relative or close personal friend, subjectively defined.

COI Policy for Authors

As part of the paper submission process, authors must declare all conflicts with members of the editorial board (including Associate Editors and Editors­-in­-Chief), and must not declare any conflicts that do not exist.

COI Policy for Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to check for conflicts with authors of any papers assigned to them, and bring such conflicts to the notice of the Editors­-in­-Chief as early as possible.

COI Policy For Associate Editors

Associate Editors are expected to check for conflicts with authors of any papers being handled by them, and bring such conflicts to the notice of the Editors­-in­-Chief as early as possible to enable the paper to be reassigned to a different Associate editor.

COI Policy For Editors­-in­-Chief

Editors­-in-­Chief (EiCs) are expected to avoid making decisions on any papers if they have a COI with any author of the paper; decision making should be done by a different EiC if possible, else delegated to one of the Associate Editors.

EiCs must not co­author any papers submitted during their tenure as EiC.

COI Policy for Managing Editor and Advisory Committee Members

There is no specific conflict of interest policy for the managing editor and the advisory committee members since they are not part of the decision making process for publications.

Policy on Originality, Resubmissions, Duplicate Submissions and Plagiarism

NOTE: many parts of this section are derived verbatim from the ACM Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism, June 2010. We thank ACM (and Bernard Rous, Director of Publication, ACM, in particular) for permission to reuse the ACM Policies.

Originality, Duplicate Submissions, Resubmissions, and Extended Versions

All submissions to PVLDB are expected to satisfy the requirements of originality, and should not be duplicate submissions or resubmissions, which are detailed in the following subsections.

  • Originality
    • A paper submitted to PVLDB must present original work not described in any prior publication that is more than 4 PVLDB­style pages in length. A prior publication is a paper that has been accepted for presentation at a refereed conference or workshop with proceedings; or an article that has been accepted for publication in a refereed journal. If a PVLDB submission has overlap with a prior publication, the submission must cite the prior publication, along with all other relevant published work, even if this prior publication is at or below the 4­page length threshold. Note that the PVLDB short papers have their length limits set to 4 pages precisely so as not to preclude future publication of a full paper.
    • Note: Issuing the paper as a technical report, posting the paper on a web site, or presenting the paper at a workshop or conference that does not publish formally reviewed proceedings does not disqualify it from appearing in PVLDB. Workshops and conferences are encouraged to indicate in their calls for papers whether or not they will publish formally reviewed proceedings so that authors can determine whether or not submission will jeopardize PVLDB publication.
    • EiCs have discretion in determining if special circumstances warrant republication of a paper without substantial revision, for example, republication of a historically significant paper as part of a retrospective.
  • Duplicate Submissions
    • A paper submitted to PVLDB cannot be under review for any other publishing forum or presentation venue, including conferences, workshops, and journals, during the time it is being considered for PVLDB. After you submit a paper to PVLDB, you must await the response from PVLDB and only resubmit elsewhere if your paper is rejected, or withdrawn at your request, from PVLDB.
    • If the PVLDB EiC is made aware of a submission to another venue (whether just title, list of authors and abstract, or a full paper) and determines that it is substantially similar to a paper submitted to PVLDB, the EiC may decide that the PVLDB submission is a duplicate submission. Such a duplicate submission to PVLDB can be summarily rejected with a note of explanation to authors. It is also expected that the EiC or PC chair of the other venue will also be kept informed; a copy of the duplicate submission may be provided to the other EiC/PC Chair.
  • Resubmission
    • PVLDB has short and long papers. Authors are not allowed to resubmit work to any track of PVLDB, if the work, or any work with substantial overlap with the submitted paper was previously rejected from a same­length track of PVLDB, within 12 months. A paper withdrawn by the authors after a revision decision will be considered as rejected and the 12­month resubmission ban applies to such papers as well. In case a paper is rejected after revision, it is considered as a recent reject for 12 months from the date of the original submission. Recent rejects, revisions of recent rejects, or papers that are substantially similar to recent rejects, with the same or overlapping sets of authors, may not be submitted to any same­length track.
  • Extended Journal Articles
    • Because PVLDB accepts conference­length papers, authors are encouraged to develop longer versions of PVLDB papers and submit them to traditional journal venues. The Editors­-in­-Chief of the VLDB Journal (VLDBJ) have formally agreed that extended versions of papers published in PVLDB may be considered for publication in VLDBJ. Other journals have informally encouraged this as well. Please contact the editors of the journal where you wish to submit a paper, to check their policies on submission of longer versions of PVLDB papers.

Plagiarism

  • Definition of Plagiarism
    • Respecting intellectual property rights is a foundational principle of the PVLDB’s Codes of Ethics. Plagiarism, in which one misrepresents ideas, words, computer codes or other creative expression as one's own, is a clear violation of such ethical principles. Plagiarism can also represent a violation of copyright law, punishable by statute. Plagiarism manifests itself in a variety of forms, including
      • Verbatim copying, near­verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's paper
      • Copying elements of another author's paper, such as equations or illustrations that are not common knowledge, or copying or purposely paraphrasing sentences without citing the source
      • Verbatim copying of portions of another author's paper with citing but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g., not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly.
    • Self­plagiarism is a related issue. In this document we define self­plagiarism as the verbatim or near­verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without properly citing the original source. Note that self­plagiarism does not apply to publications based on the author's own previous short paper (see section titled Originality in this document) where an explicit reference is made to the prior publication. Such reuse does not require quotation marks to delineate the reused text but does require that the source be cited.
    • All authors are deemed to be individually and collectively responsible for the content of papers published by PVLDB. Hence, it is the responsibility of each author to ensure that papers submitted to PVLDB attain the highest ethical standards with respect to plagiarism.
    • PVLDB places the investigation of each claim of plagiarism at the highest priority for resolution and action.
  • Notifying PVLDB of Alleged Plagiarism
    • To inform PVLDB of alleged plagiarism, send email to an Editor­in­Chief of PVLDB. The following is the minimum information required for PVLDB to initiate a plagiarism investigation:
      • The names and contacts of the person(s) making the claim and their relationship to the allegation (e.g., author of plagiarized work, reviewer or editor of plagiarizing work).
      • A citation to the original paper(s) (paper title, author, publication title, date of publication).
      • A citation to the alleged plagiarizing paper.
      • Indication of specific pages, sections, paragraphs in each work alleged as evidence of the plagiarism.
    • In addition, PVLDB encourages the submission of the following additional information to aid in its investigation:
      • Copies of all papers involved in the alleged plagiarism.
      • Additional information regarding how to obtain involved papers that are unpublished (e.g., a technical report, an online posting).
      • Any other information that would help PVLDB efficiently resolve the claim.
  • Investigation
    • Upon receipt of an allegation of plagiarism, one of the EiCs will coordinate the investigation. Depending on the details of the claim, the investigation may include, but not be limited to, any or all of the following steps:
      • Manual and/or automated tests of content similarity
      • Soliciting comments to the claim from the Editor­in­Chief who was in charge when the paper was originally published
      • Forming an ad hoc committee of experts in the field to review the claim
      • Communicating with the individuals involved on both sides.
    • Once the investigation has been completed, the EiC in consultation with the Managing Editor, will determine the penalties to be imposed depending on the type of plagiarism.
  • Confidentiality
    • All aspects of an investigation will be treated with the utmost regard for confidentiality. The names and contacts of the person(s) making the claim and their relationship to the allegation (e.g., author of plagiarized work, reviewer or editor of plagiarizing work) will be kept confidential and used only for the purpose and duration of the investigation. However, in order to ensure timely and effective resolution, details of a claim will be circulated to individuals on a need­to­know basis (e.g., see Section 3.2.3 above). As part of the investigation, it may be necessary for PVLDB to contact current and/or past employers of the authors. Additionally, some institutions have specific requirements for their employees to disclose any pending legal/ethical matters.
    • PVLDB, at its discretion, may decide to inform the general public of the plagiarism investigation. However, during the investigation, under no circumstances will PVLDB disclose any individual author's name, paper titles, referees, ad hoc investigation committee members, or any other personal or specific information regarding a plagiarism claim to the general public.
  • Results of an Investigation
    • Once a decision has been reached, it will be communicated to all parties immediately by the EiC. If plagiarism has been found, all parties will be informed of the penalties and the actions that will be taken. Upon notification, the investigative phase will be deemed to have ended, and there will be no further communication with any party by PVLDB. All appeals must be made in writing to the Managing Editor, PVLDB, no more than 30 days from the date of notification.
    • Once a determination of plagiarism has been made, there is no guarantee that the author names and paper titles will continue to be kept confidential.
  • Penalties for Plagiarism
  • Verbatim copying, near­verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing a significant portion of another author's paper without citing the source and without clearly delineating (e.g., in quotation marks) the source material.
    • PVLDB will inform the Department Chair, Dean, or supervisor of the authors of the finding of plagiarism.
    • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of plagiarism.
    • If the paper has appeared in press, PVLDB will post a Notice of Plagiarism based on the investigation on the citation page of the plagiarizing paper and will remove access to the full text. The paper itself will be kept in the database for future research or legal purposes.
    • If the paper is under submission, the paper can be automatically rejected by the Editor­in­Chief without further review and without any further plagiarism investigation. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor­in­Chief to the authors with a copy of the PVLDB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.
  • Verbatim copying, near­verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing sentences of another author's paper and/or, copying elements of another author's paper (such as non­common knowledge illustrations and equations) without citing the source and without clearly delineating (e.g., in quotation marks) the source material.
    • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of plagiarism.
    • If the paper has appeared in press, PVLDB will post a Notice of Plagiarism based on the investigation on the citation page of the plagiarizing paper and will remove access to the full text. The paper itself will be kept in the database for future research or legal purposes.
    • If the paper is under submission, the paper can be automatically rejected by the Editor­-in-­Chief without further review and without any further plagiarism investigation. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor­-in­-Chief to the authors with a copy of the PVLDB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.
  • Verbatim copying of portions of another author's paper with citing, but not clearly differentiating what text has been copied (e.g., not applying quotation marks correctly) and/or not citing the source correctly.
    NB: Representing substantial portions of another’s work as one’s own can result in the stronger penalties of 3.2.6.1 even when that work is cited.
    • The authors will be asked to write a formal letter of apology to the authors of the plagiarized paper, including an admission of plagiarism.
    • If the paper is under submission, at the discretion of the Editor­in­Chief, the paper can either be automatically rejected without further review or a revision will be required that clearly and correctly cites the previous work. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor­in­Chief to the authors with a copy of the PVLDB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.
  • Self plagiarism or duplicate publication (verbatim or near­verbatim reuse of significant portions of one's own work in subsequent papers where the authors have not properly disclosed in the subsequent paper the previous publication).
    • If the paper is under submission, at the discretion of the Editor­in­Chief, the paper can either be automatically rejected without further review or a revision will be required that clearly and correctly cites the previous work. In addition, a letter of warning will be sent by the Editor­in­Chief to the authors with a copy of the PVLDB Policy and Procedures on Plagiarism.
    • In case the paper has been published, the following procedures will be followed.
      • In case the PVLDB paper has self­plagiarized an earlier paper, the PVLDB paper will be retracted (see procedure for retractions) with a notice of violation of the PVLDB policy on self­plagiarism ("This paper has been retracted since PVLDB has determined that the paper has violated the PVLDB policy on self­plagiarism").
      • In case self­plagiarism is between two papers submitted in parallel, and both are accepted and published, the PVLDB paper will be retracted, with a notice of violation of the PVLDB policy on duplicate submission/self­plagiarism.
      • In case the authors publish a subsequent paper self­plagiarizing a PVLDB paper, the original PVLDB paper is retained, but the EiC may optionally choose to put up a notice of subsequent self­plagiarism on the PVLDB site.

Should the authors refuse to comply with the above (e.g., if they refuse to write a formal letter of apology) or if it is determined during the plagiarism investigation that there have been multiple violations of any of the above forms of plagiarism by the same authors, PVLDB retains the right to impose further sanctions such as automatic rejection of all current and future submissions for some extended period of time, and possibly statutory/injunctive relief.

Policy on Errata Notes and Retractions

Corrections to articles can be made in one of two ways.

(A) Errata Note

A short note which points out an error, and may optionally provide a correction to a paper previously published in PVLDB. Errata notes may be submitted either by authors of the original paper, or by any one else; the process of handling the errata note differs in these two cases.

Errata notes must be submitted just like a regular paper but with the text “Errata For” as part of the title, and with length limited to 2 pages (unless otherwise permitted by the Editor in Chief) in the PVLDB format.

Rebuttals (see review procedure for errata notes for more details) will be titled “Rebuttal to <title of errata note>”.

(B) Retraction

In case of serious problems with a paper (such as plagiarism, or major errors in results that go beyond the scope of a correction), the authors or the editor­in­chief may decide to retract a paper.

Retraction notes must have their length limited to 1 page. See procedure for retraction below.

Submission Procedure

All errata notes and retraction requests must be submitted online on the PVLDB paper submission site. A “Errata Notes” track may be created on the submission site. In order to speed up the process, the person submitting corrections/comments/retractions must send an email to the editor­in­chief to notify them of the submission.

Publication Procedure

All errata notes, rebuttals, and retractions will be published on the PVLDB site like regular publications and will get their own DOI. A link to the errata note/rebuttal/retraction will be added adjacent to the link to the original publication. In the case of a retraction, the original article will be deleted, and replaced with the page describing the retraction.

Review Procedure for Errata Notes from Original Authors

The responsible editor (one of the Editors­-in­-Chief by default) may choose to publish corrections without any review, or may choose to get the correction reviewed by one or more reviewers, where feasible by one of the reviewers of the original paper.

Review Procedure for Errata Notes from Others

  • The Editor should designate at least two reviewers and should be actively involved in the procedure to guarantee speed.
  • The authors of the original paper being commented upon in the Errata Note are not to be used as reviewers. All other rules for conflict of interest apply.
  • In the event an Errata Note is accepted for publication, or even as part of the review process, the editor sends the authors of the original paper a copy of the note and invites them to rebut the Errata Note within a reasonably short period (approximately 3 weeks). Such rebuttal will be handled by the same editor and peer reviewed by the same reviewers as the original Errata Note.
  • Once both the Errata Note and any reviewed and approved rebuttal are recommended for publication, the Editor­in­Chief will review both the Errata Note and the rebuttal and make the final decision regarding publication of the Errata Note, and the rebuttal.
  • If the decision of the Editor­in­Chief is to publish both the Errata Note and the rebuttal, the authors of the Errata Note will be provided with a copy of the rebuttal. However, at this point, the author of the Errata Note will be permitted no further comment (no rebuttal of the rebuttal).
  • The author of the Errata Note, upon reviewing the rebuttal, may choose to request that the Errata Note be withdrawn. A reasonably short period (say 2 weeks) may be given to the author of the errata note to make this decision. If the Errata Note is withdrawn, neither the Errata Note nor the rebuttal will be published in PVLDB. If the decision of the Errata note author is not to withdraw, then the Errata Note and the rebuttal will appear together in a future issue of PVLDB. No further rebuttals will be published.

Procedure for Retraction

In the case of retraction requests, after verifying the reasons for retraction (such as plagiarism, or requests from the author for retraction due to significant errors), the EiC may make a decision on retraction. Except in cases where violations can be independently verified (such as plagiarism) the original authors should be given a chance to respond within a reasonably short period (approximately 3 weeks).

  • Retractions will be formatted in prescribed format, with the following details:
    • The title would be of the form “Retraction of <original paper title>”
    • The authors would be as follows:
      • In case retraction is done by the original authors, the retraction will have their names as authors. This would hold even if the retraction is subsequent to the submission of an errata note, in which case the errata note would also be published in parallel.
      • In case retraction is done by the editors, the author name in the retraction note would be “Editor-­in-­Chief, PVLDB” to avoid retractions being listed as a publication of an individual.
    • The body of the retraction article would contain the reason for the retraction.
  • The original article will be removed from the PVLDB site, and the retraction article will replace it on the site (with the same URL). (The original paper will be retained in an area that is not publicly accessible, in order to deal with possible subsequent legal and other tasks.)
  • ACM DL or other sites with which PVLDB has an agreement for hosting PVLDB papers will be notified of the retraction.

Policy on Copyrights

Authors can expect PVLDB to:

  • Allow a submission to be posted on home pages and public repositories before and after review.
  • Allow an authors' version of their own PVLDB-­copyrighted or licensed work on their personal server or on servers belonging to their employers.
  • Allow metadata information, e.g., bibliographic, abstract, and keywords, for their individual work to be openly available.
  • Allow authors the right to reuse their figures in their own subsequent publications for which they have granted PVLDB copyright or license.

If the article has been written in the course of employment by a Government agency so that no copyright exists, authors are not expected to transfer copyright.

If not, if and when the article is accepted for publication, the undersigned hereby grants and assigns exclusively to the VLDB Endowment all rights of copyright in this contribution, and the exclusive right to print, publish, post on servers, distribute to lists, and sell the work throughout the world in all languages, with the following exception:

The author(s) reserve(s) the following:

  • (1) All other rights such as patent rights.
  • (2) The right to use all or part of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews or textbooks. In the case of republication of the whole article or parts thereof in journals or reprint publications by a third party, written permission must be obtained from the VLDB Endowment to be signed by at least one of the authors (who agrees to inform the others, if any) or, in case of a “work made for hire," by the employer.

In the case of an article commissioned by another person or organization or written as part of duties as an employee, an authorized representative of the commissioning organization or employer should sign. To be signed by all authors, or, if signed by only one author on behalf of the others, the following additional statement must be signed and accepted by the author signing for his co­authors:
"I represent and warrant that I am authorized to execute this transfer of copyright on behalf of all the authors of the article referred to above."

External Reviewer Policy

The most important module within the review process are insightful reviews by the most relevant and therefore best possible reviewers. For this reason, PVLDB maintains a large review board of recognized scholars of the field with the goal to provide expertise for a wide range of topics in the scope of PVLDB.

PVLDB review board members in their role of reviewers are primarily responsible and accountable for the review for every assigned submission. Assigning external reviewers, i.e. forwarding a review assignment to individuals within and outside of the PVLDB review board without the permission of the corresponding AE is not allowed – for many reasons like missing/unclear expertise, potential violation of the COI rules etc.

If a situation arises that external support is needed for a review, the assigned reviewer may approach the corresponding AE in order to help finding an additional reviewer. The AE may obviously take recommendations from the assigned reviewers. It is up to the AE to decide if it is necessary to bring in additional external expertise, potentially approaching an additional reviewer and ask to support for a single review with respect to a very specific submission. The AE may also decide to approach the EiCs and propose to invite this additional reviewer as a regular member of the review board for the current Volume of PVLDB (with all rights and responsibilities).

A reviewer is allowed to share and discuss a submission with a trainee (e.g. PhD student, intern, PostDoc) for educational purposes only, e.g. train a PhD student to identify strong and weak points of a submission, identify the core contributions or assess the quality of the structure of a paper. The reviewer is (a) responsible to ensure that there is no COI according to the rules published at PVLDB.org between the trainee and any of the authors of the paper. The reviewer (b) has to inform the trainee about the confidentiality of the content of the paper. The reviewer (c) is still – as already stated above – solely responsible for the final review.

Summary: no forwarding of review assignments; AE is responsible to decide on additional reviewers if necessary (from within the board or from outside); discussing a submission with a trainee is allowed for educational purposes only, if the reviewer ensures the alignment with the COI rules and informs about the confidentiality of a PVLDB submission.

Desk-Reject Policy

The editorial board may decide on a case-by-case basis to desk-reject a submission to the PVLDB Journal for the following reasons:

  • Case 1: The submission is not compliant to the formatting and general submission rules (e.g. “declaration of conflicts of interest” and “violation of re-submission policy”) as outlined in the Call for Contribution of the current PVLDB Volume, available at: pvldb.org
  • Case 2: The submission is identified as a case of plagiarism, i.e. a substantial part of the submission has already been published at another venue (Note: The online availability of the submitted version or of a version showing a significant overlap to the submitted version at arxiv.org is not considered a publication in this context.)
  • Case 3: The submission is identified as being out-of-scope as described within the Call for Contribution of the current Volume, available at: pvldb.org

PVLDB Appeals Policy

In case an author considers a submission not having been handled correctly (e.g. with respect to desk-reject decisions or regarding the outcome of a review process), he/she may directly approach one of the EiCs of the relevant PVLDB volume within in a two-month period by clearly stating the reason of this complaint. The EiCs may either handle the case themselves or form an ad-hoc committee usually consisting of the Associate Editor in charge as well as additional experts of the field. The decision will be communicated to the authors within one month.

If the appealer believes there has been a procedural or ethical violation, he/she may directly approach the acting Managing Editor (ME) of PVLDB clearly stating the cause of his/her complaint. The ME may discuss the matter with the EiCs as well as with members of the VLDB executive board. The ME will communicate a final decision within one month. The ME and VLDB executive board will not over-turn scientific decisions of the EiCs.