Ethical Standards for Publication of AIAA Technical Papers

The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) serves the engineering and scientific aerospace communities and society at large in several ways, including the publication of technical papers that present the results of original scientific and engineering research. As a publisher, AIAA has the responsibility to protect those who contribute their original work to the Institute, as well as those who use AIAA publications to further their own understanding or research.

This document is an adaptation of the Ethical Standards for Publication in AIAA Journals and Books and will provide guidance on communicating standards of ethical behavior for event organizers, abstract reviewers, and authors. As such, the workflow described herein is specific to the process for AIAA forums and other events that include archival publications, hereafter referred to as “events.”

The term Organizer when used alone, applies to the Forum Technical Chair, Technical Discipline Chair, Session Chairs, or Program Organizers. The Organizer has the responsibility for the technical quality, operating procedures, and the ethical standards of the technical papers.

The term Author(s) refers to all contributing authors of the technical paper being published.

The term Abstract Reviewer refers to AIAA members who review submitted abstracts and help the Technical Committee decide on which proposed papers will be accepted or rejected for publication and presentation at AIAA events.

Authors submit an abstract to the event based on the published Call for Papers.  Abstract Reviewers are then assigned to review these submissions on behalf of the technical disciplines participating in the event. Abstract Reviewers submit a numerical score assessing such things as: Uniqueness of Research, Impact of Research, Grammar/Readability, Organization, and the overall potential of the submitted abstract to be turned into a good paper. Abstract Reviewers also make a recommendation regarding whether the work should be accepted or rejected. Based on this input, Organizers accept or reject submissions and request the Authors to proceed forward with completion of a submitted final manuscript for the proceedings.

2.1. Obligations of Organizers

1. The Organizers have the responsibility to maintain the ethical standards for reviewing, processing, and publishing accepted material. Additionally, the Organizers have the responsibility to promote the publication and presentation of high-quality, original technical material in the technical papers and the conference.
2. The Organizer will not disclose any information about an abstract under consideration or its disposition to anyone other than those from whom professional advice is sought. The names of reviewers will not be disclosed, even in indirect communication, without the reviewers’ permission.
3. The Organizer must avoid situations of real or perceived conflicts of interest either with them personally or with their employer.
4. The Organizer will not use his/her access and knowledge of submitted abstracts or technical papers in their own research or in any of their professional or personal activities.
5. An Organizer shall not use or disclose information, arguments, or results contained in an abstract or technical paper until after the technical paper has been published.
6. If an Organizer is presented with convincing evidence that the main substance or conclusions of a paper published in the event proceedings are erroneous or fraudulent, the Organizer will consult with AIAA staff (Manager of Technical Programs) on the appropriate resolution. The Manager of Technical Programs is also responsible for cross-checking abstract authors with the Banned Authors List, which is maintained by the AIAA Publications Department.

2.2. Obligations of Authors

Authors have a number of obligations regarding the technical and writing quality of the abstract and paper, meeting deadlines for submissions, upholding ethical standards for publication, and informing Organizers if any problems arise concerning submission of the paper. Because plagiarism is the most common violation of publication ethics by authors, it is the focus of the discussion here. Plagiarism is defined as an author using or appearing to claim the ideas, concepts, writings, or material from another author and presenting them as their own work. Plagiarism is an act of theft as well as fraud. Plagiarism is unacceptable and is considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical, professional, and legal consequences. Plagiarism includes, for example, failure to provide a citation in the immediate context to previously published work, thereby creating the implication that the work is original.

A specific type of plagiarism is referred to as self-plagiarism, literary recycling, or text recycling. Self-plagiarism is defined as the use of the authors’ previous work without proper citation in the immediate context of its reuse. Extensive reuse of the authors’ previous work, or duplication from a previous publication, undercuts the perceived originality of the new work and is considered ethical misconduct. Self-plagiarism is an act of fraud or deceit, as opposed to an act of theft. Publishing work previously published on open archives or government databases is allowed per AIAA policy. For more details, see: https://aiaa.org/publications/publish-with-aiaa/publication-policies/#how-can-i-share-my-research-guidelines-for-authors

The AIAA reserves the right to use software to aid in the detection of plagiarism and self-plagiarism when a technical paper is submitted for publication.

1. The author should present a concise, accurate account of the research, development, or application performed, as well as an objective discussion of its significance.
2. The author should clarify how the work relates to the present state of knowledge and what is an extension to the state of knowledge. The author should cite those publications that have been influential in the reported work and that establish precedence or originating concepts, theories, or techniques that are used in the present work.
3. The author should present sufficiently detailed information about the reported work such that the author’s peers could repeat the work.
4. Information obtained privately, as in conversation, correspondence, or discussions, cannot be used or reported in the author’s work without explicit permission from the investigator with whom the information originated and with appropriate citation. Information obtained in the course of confidential services cannot be used without explicit permission from the source of the information.
5. Authors should avoid publishing the minimally publishable unit or fragmenting their research publications . Authors should organize publication so that each publication gives a complete account of a particular aspect of the general study.
6. Persons who have significantly contributed to the reported work must be listed as co-authors. All co-authors attest to the fact that any others named as co-authors have seen the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication. Deceased persons who meet the criterion for co-authorship should be included, with a footnote reporting date of death.
7. It is inappropriate and professionally unethical to submit technical papers with obvious marketing character, whether it is regarding a product or organization.
8. The author is responsible to obtain any required government, company reviews, or security clearances for submission. Furthermore, the author is responsible to obtain any reprinting or copyright permissions for the submission.
9. In any response to reviewer comments, the author will express any disagreements or rebuttals in a professional, polite, and respectful manner. Intimidating or insulting language is not acceptable. The author will not refer to their professional titles or status in the scientific community as a means of defending their work; only technical and logical arguments are appropriate.
10. The author who discovers a significant error or significantly incorrect conclusions in their work, subsequent to publication of their work, should submit errata or a retraction as appropriate. The correction to the published work should be sent to AIAA staff at [email protected].
11. If the essential research and conclusions/recommendations described in the paper have been presented previously by the author in another professional society meeting, the author should clearly state that at the beginning of the paper via a note and the paper should list what the other meeting was and what the paper number was.

2.3. Obligations of Abstract Reviewers

1. The Abstract Reviewers will give unbiased and impartial consideration to all abstracts offered for submission, judging each on its scientific and engineering merits.
2. An Abstract Reviewer should judge the quality of the submission objectively and respect the intellectual independence of the author. In no case is personal criticism appropriate. Abstract Reviewers will write their comments in a professional, polite, and respectful manner. Abstract Reviewers will not refer to their professional titles or status in the scientific community as a means of criticizing an article. Only technical and logical arguments are appropriate.
3. An Abstract Reviewer must consider if he or she has a real, potential or perceived conflict of interest regarding work they are asked to review. If in doubt, the Abstract Reviewer should identify the conflict promptly with the Organizer without reviewing the submission, advising the Organizer of the real or perceived conflict of interest or bias. Conflicts of interest or bias include financial interests in conflict with submitted work, funding proposals in competition with submitted work, intense professional or personal competition with any of the authors or their organization, rivalry to publish similar work first, or anything that might hinder an Abstract Reviewer’s objectivity.
4. An Abstract Reviewer shall not evaluate a submission authored or co-authored by a person with whom the Abstract Reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would in any way bias their judgment of the abstract.
5. An Abstract Reviewer shall treat an abstract sent for review as a confidential document. Its contents, as well as their reviewer recommendations or recommendations of other abstract reviewers, should neither be shown to nor discussed with others outside of the review process.
6. An Abstract Reviewer shall explain and support their judgments adequately so that the Organizer and the author understand the basis of the comments. Any reviewer statement that a concept, observation, derivation, or results have been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation to the previously published work.
7. An Abstract Reviewer shall call attention to the Organizer any substantial similarity between the abstract under consideration, any published work, or any work submitted concurrently to another event if not properly cited during submission if they are aware of another similar abstract.
8. An Abstract Reviewer shall not use or disclose information, arguments, or results contained in an abstract until after the technical paper has been published.

3.1. Introduction

This section addresses the rapidly growing trend of using artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the preparation and review of publications. When this document refers to AI, it is inclusive of, but not limited to, intelligent agents, generative or creative AI (such as ChatGPT and openFrameworks), AI-assisted technologies, deep learning, etc. This document is focused on the use of AI in the preparation of text, figures, illustrations, references, and graphics for a technical paper, as well as the use of AI by organizers and reviewers. AI tools used in the research activity or in engineering practice itself are not regulated in this document, but they are expected to be fully described in the technical paper for evaluation by readers. This policy is intended to provide guidance and transparency to authors, organizers, reviewers, and readers concerning how AI should be ethically used in AIAA publications.

3.2. Obligations of Authors

Each author is fully responsible and accountable for the content of the entire technical paper, including the accuracy, integrity, and completeness of the paper, citation of previous work, obtaining copyright approval, and potential issues of plagiarism. If authors use any type of AI technology in the writing process, AI should be used primarily to improve readability, grammar, and language in the work. Note that the term Author refers to all contributing authors of the technical paper under consideration. Authors may not list AI or AI-assisted technologies as a co-author. Authors may not cite AI engines as an original source. When authors use AI in the writing process, they must disclose the use of AI technologies used in the preparation of the technical paper upon submission to ScholarOne; disclosures exclude the use of spelling and grammar checkers that are included in word processing software.

4.1. Importance of Compliance

1. Listing authors who did not significantly contribute to the work, omitting those who did contribute, and providing false contact or organizational information.
2. Failing to correctly state company or government clearance information.
3. Failing to correctly state the copyright status of any part of the submission.
4. Failing to or misstating the funding source for the work.
5. Submitting the current or a closely related work to another publisher while it is under consideration or review by AIAA; referred to as multiple submissions.
6. Failing to or improperly referencing closely related previous work.
7. Using unprofessional, disrespectful, or abusive communications by the author with anyone involved in the submission process, e.g., the organizers, reviewers, or AIAA staff.

4.3. Sanctions for Ethical Misconduct

Depending on the seriousness of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or other ethical misconduct, the following sanctions may be applied to an author (note that author refers to all co-authors of a technical paper):

1. If unethical conduct is discovered after a technical paper has been published by AIAA, an official notice of unethical conduct may be sent to the Crossref, Inc. This notice would be publicly available to a reader who selects the Check for updates link using the Crossmark software that appears on the first page of every AIAA publication.
2. A limited or permanent ban from publication by AIAA may be imposed on the author(s).

Any allegations of ethical misconduct related to Technical Papers shall be addressed in writing to the Chair of the AIAA Ethics Committee. The complaint shall specify the section of the AIAA Code of Ethics that is alleged to have been violated. It shall state the facts of the alleged violation and provide any available evidence in support of the allegations.

These may be submitted either by email to Rodger Williams, AIAA Ethics Committee Liaison: [email protected], or submitted by mail to:

AIAA Ethics Committee
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
12700 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite 200
Reston, Virginia 20191-5807
Attn: Rodger Williams, AIAA Ethics Committee Liaison

These complaints shall be recorded as being received, acknowledged, and forwarded to the current Chair of the AIAA Ethics Committee for consideration. All communications shall be kept confidential.