The Editorial board/Editor aims to achieve the highest possible standard of professional ethics in publishing.  To  this end, the following guidelines and principles have been published to clearly define the responsibilities of authors, reviewers and editors.  All manuscripts submitted for presentation at the symposium  and potential publication in the book of proceedings should present the results of original research in the area of lifts and escalators, or provide a useful contribution to the disciplines of design, maintenance, commissioning and consultancy in lifts and escalators.  Each manuscript will undergo rigorous peer review by at least two reviewers to ensure that the subject is relevant and original.  A single blind setup arrangement will be used to ensure objectivity.

In discharging the editorial task, the following principles and guidelines will be strictly followed:

  1. The editors/editorial board will enjoy complete authority to accept or reject the manuscripts, based on the outcome of the peer review process, without external or personal influences.  The editors/editorial board may consult with associate editors in making the final acceptance/rejection decision.
  2. The editors/editorial board will consider all relevant submitted manuscripts for publication regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
  3. The editors/editorial board will treat any submitted manuscripts as confidential documents and will undertake not to disclose any information about the manuscript to anyone other than the reviewers or the potential reviewers.
  4. The editors/editorial board will not use any unpublished information in their own research.
  5. Where any errors are brought to the attention of the editor/editorial board at any point following the publication of a manuscript, they should take immediate action to prompt the author to publish corrections or retractions as appropriate.

Authors are expected to uphold the following principles and guidelines :

  1. Authors are expected to present their research results in a concise and accurate manner.
  2. While the papers are expected to be concise, they should contain enough detail to allow other researchers to fully reproduce their work in order to allow verification.
  3. The authors are expected to acknowledge the work of others used in their work, and to seek permission for use where appropriate. 
  4. The authors are expected to avoid the repeat publication of material that has already been published or submitted elsewhere.
  5. Cases of plagiarism and fabrication would be dealt with severely, resulting in the immediate rejection of the submitted manuscript, and will very likely lead to the blacklisting of the author from any future submissions.
  6. The list of authors should be restricted to those who have made significant contributions to the work presented in the manuscript.  It is suggested that less significant contributions are acknowledged in the manuscript.
  7. Authors should address engineering issues, and not promote any company product or service.
  8. Authors are expected to avoid using their paper and/or presentation to make derogatory comments about any person, company, or profession.  Session Chairman have permission to suspend a presentation if this requirement is not respected.

Reviewers are expected to uphold the following principles and guidelines:

  1. Reviewers should objectively assess the relevance and quality of the research presented; and ensure that their feedback is: constructive, clear, tactful, without bias, without personal criticism of the author(s) and not self-promoting.  Reviewers must refrain from being hostile or inflammatory and from making libellous or derogatory personal comments.
  2. Reviewers should treat any information contained in the manuscript as confidential and should not discuss its content with others. Where reviewers seek the advice of others regarding the content of the manuscript for the purpose of the peer review, they should inform the editor/editorial board.  
  3. Reviewers should not use information obtained during the peer-review process for their own or any other person's or organization's advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others.  Reviewers should not use any of the material in their own research to gain competitive advantage.
  4. Reviewers should declare all potential conflicting interests, seeking advice from the symposium management if they are unsure whether something constitutes a relevant interest.
  5. Reviewers should not allow their reviews to be influenced by the origins of a manuscript, by the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other characteristics of the authors, or by commercial considerations.
  6. Reviewers should not suggest that the authors include citations to the reviewer's (or their associates') work merely to increase the reviewer's (or their associates') citation count or to enhance the visibility of their or their associates' work; suggestions must be based on valid academic or technological reasons.
  7. Reviewers should be specific in their criticisms and provide evidence with appropriate references to substantiate general statements such as, 'this work has been done before', to help editors in their evaluation and decision and in fairness to the authors.
  8. Reviewers should remember that it is the authors' paper and not attempt to rewrite it to their own preferred style if it is basically sound and clear; suggestions for changes that improve clarity are, however, important.
  9. Reviewers should make clear which suggested additional investigations are essential to support claims made in the manuscript under consideration and which will just strengthen or extend the work.
 The Proceedings Editor's decision on disputed comments is final. The reviewer may request a copy of the commenting template after the event.  If the Proceedings Editor moderates a reviewer’s comments, the reviewer will be sent a copy of the changes.

Session Chairmen are expected to:

  1. Be familiar with the papers in their session, and the requirements on authors and reviewers.
  2. To have at least one question in reserve for the Q&A for each paper in their session.
  3. Ensure that these requirements are maintained during the presentation of written papers.
  4. Interrupt a presentation to warn the presenter(s) if any requirements are not met.
  5. End a presentation prematurely, and if necessary suspend session in the event of the presenter(s) not respecting the warning.