Start with responsible scholarly practice

A joint South African statement issued by ASSAf, CHE, DHET, NRF and USAf addresses ethical research and scholarly publishing, including researchers’ responsibility to avoid predatory publishing and unethical editorial practices. [1]

That responsibility is broader than choosing a journal name. It includes understanding the research output and the process through which it is communicated. Use your university’s research-support office to clarify the rules that apply to a particular output.

This guide does not determine subsidy eligibility, institutional recognition or a journal’s current approved status. Those questions need the relevant official records and institutional interpretation, not an event page or an automated risk score.

Separate three output records

A presentation record describes what you delivered at an event. A proceedings record describes a published contribution, if one exists. A journal article is a separate publication with its own review and identity. Connect them when appropriate, but do not collapse them into a single “publication” field.

For each claimed output, keep the title, authors, venue, date and identifier or source. If proceedings are only proposed, use “publication route pending”. If you have an acceptance letter but no publication, retain the letter as acceptance evidence.

A conference can provide a valuable academic conversation without producing a journal article. State the purpose clearly so a valuable participation record is not inflated into a different outcome.

Check the publication route before commitment

Our practical suggestion is to ask for the named proceedings or journal route, the review process and the responsible contact. Compare those answers with the publication’s own information. Do not infer guaranteed indexing from a general statement that material will be submitted for evaluation.

If an event uses a partner institution’s name, seek confirmation through that institution’s own source. Keep the question unresolved until there is evidence. Neither a broad country label nor a sophisticated site design establishes the claim.

The screening case study in this reading series demonstrates why candidate counts need qualification. Repeated-title patterns and unresolved directory listings were screening reasons, not findings of misconduct for every record.

Make identity and contribution traceable

ORCID allows researchers to maintain works using identifiers, imports and manual records. Review imported metadata so the public identity record accurately describes your contributions. [2]

Our recommended evidence register includes authorship or contribution information alongside the source. Keep a version of the submitted work and record overlap with earlier outputs. A clear identity record supports traceability; it is not a substitute for research quality assessment.

ScholarVault’s Research Vault and submission workflows can support this record keeping. Its automated SCVS assessment has evidence and coverage limits and is separate from a university’s evaluation. [3] [4]

Use the research office as the decision partner

Bring the source evidence, proposed contribution and unresolved publication questions to your supervisor or research-support team. Ask what documentation is needed for the institution’s process. Record the advice and the version of the policy used.

After the event, update the actual output and retain the programme or publication source. Revisit pending claims rather than carrying them forward indefinitely as confirmed achievements.

Your next step: choose one conference-linked output in your CV. Check whether it is described as a presentation, proceedings paper or journal article, and attach the source that supports that description.

Sources & reading notes

Sources reviewed for this draft on 9 October 2026. Institutional examples illustrate a source trail; they do not imply a ScholarVault partnership or endorsement. Workflow recommendations are ScholarVault’s editorial interpretation.

  1. ASSAf, CHE, DHET, NRF & USAf — ethical research and scholarly publishing statement
  2. ORCID — adding research works
  3. ScholarVault — Research Vault guide
  4. ScholarVault — SCVS methodology and assessment limits

Have a correction or a newer institutional source? Send it to the editorial team.

Back to the opening ↑