VLDB Endowment Logo
Contact
Organization
Publication Policies
Rights & Responsibilities
Open Access Statement
FAQ
Privacy Policy

PVLDB Publication Policies

1 Preamble

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

2 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 or jointly organized event 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.

    • 2.1 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.

    2.2 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.

    2.3 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.

    2.4 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 co-author any papers submitted during their tenure as EiC.

    2.5 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.

    3 PVLDB Code of Ethics for Authors

    NOTE: many parts of this section are derived verbatim from the "ACM Policy on Plagiarism, Misrepresentation, and Falsification," the "Policy on the Withdrawal, Correction, Retraction, and Removal of Works from ACM Publications and ACM DL" of February 2023 and from the "Penalties for Publication Violation" of April 2023. We thank ACM (and Scott Delman, Director of Publication, ACM, in particular) for permission to make use of the ACM Policies.

    This document presents the PVLDB Code of Ethics for Authors. It starts by defining the submission requirements and listing possible reasons for desk rejection (Section 3.1). Then, it defines a series of conducts that are considered unethical behavior (Section 3.2). Finally, it presents actions that will be taken to enforce the present policy (Section 3.3).

    3.1. Submission Requirements

    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.

    3.1.1 Originality

    A paper submitted to PVLDB must present original work not described in any prior publication that is more than 4 PVLDB-style pages in length (including references and appendix). A prior publication is a paper that has been accepted for presentation at a peer-reviewed conference or workshop with proceedings; or an article that has been accepted for publication in a refereed journal. If a PVLDB submission overlaps 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 4-page length threshold.

    Issuing the paper as a technical report, posting the paper on a website, 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.

    Editors-in-Chief (EiCs) have discretion in determining if special circumstances warrant the republication of a paper without substantial revision, for example, the republication of a historically significant paper as part of a retrospective.

    3.1.2 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 EiCs are made aware of a submission to another venue (whether just title, list of authors and abstract, or a full paper) and determine that it is substantially similar to a paper submitted to PVLDB, the EiCs 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 the authors. It is also expected that the EiCs or PC chairs of the other venue will be kept informed; a copy of the duplicate submission may be provided to the other EiCs/PC Chairs.

    3.1.3 Resubmission

    PVLDB has different submission tracks with varying limits of size. Authors are not allowed to resubmit work to a research track of PVLDB, if the work, or any work with substantial overlap with the submitted paper was previously rejected from any research track of PVLDB, within 12 months.

    A paper withdrawn by the authors after a revision decision will be considered as rejected, and the 12-month resubmission embargo 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 of the PVLDB research tracks.

    3.1.4 Work Withdrawn

    The authors can withdraw their submitted papers at any time as long as the review process has not started. After the review process has started, authors may request that PVLDB withdraw a Work, as long as it has not been published yet. Certain conditions must be met before the decision can be made to withdraw an unpublished Work from the submission, review, and publication process. They are:

  • a formal, written request by email to the EiCs must be made by the author(s) providing reasonable justification for the withdrawal request, such as possible errors found on the paper;
  • the requesting authors have the legal authority to request withdrawal of the Work;
  • all co-authors of the Work have given their consent to the withdrawal of the Work without being coerced in any way by their co-authors.

    • Assuming the appropriate criteria described above have been met, and the EiCs agree with the request, the EiCs will issue a formal withdrawal statement (typically by email) to all co-authors listed on the submitted Work.

    3.1.5 Reasons for Desk Rejection

    There are several reasons for a paper to be desk rejected, including:

  • submissions that are subjected to the 12-month embargo that are made before the end of the 12 months period;
  • lack of declaration of Conflicts of Interest (CoIs) for any of the authors of the submission;
  • submissions that do not follow the PVLDB formatting guidelines;
  • submissions that are out of scope for PVLDB;

    • Desk-rejected submissions for any of the above reasons are NOT subject to the 12-month embargo. A submission may also be desk rejected due to unethical behavior, as discussed in other sections of this document, and may suffer the 12-month embargo, as well as other sanctions described in this Policy. Examples include:

  • contacting any member of the review board regarding your submission (all contact regarding a submission must be made through the EiCs) or making other attempts to violate anonymity;
  • suggesting potential reviewer names to the EiCs.

    • 3.1.6 Extended Journal Articles

    Because PVLDB accepts conference-length 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.

    3.2. Unethical Behaviour

    3.2.1 Plagiarism

    Respecting intellectual property rights is a foundational principle of the PVLDB’s Codes of Ethics for Authors. 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, near-verbatim copying, or purposely paraphrasing portions of another author's paper;
  • rephrasing existing work as one's text without proper attribution;
  • 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; and
  • 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 correctly citing the source.

    • Note that whether a prior Work has been formally published is not a factor in determining plagiarism; a Work not formally published may be plagiarised. This includes content provided online in preprints, tutorials, manuals, and essays, as well as offline content in any form. The representation of any other person's material as one's own Work is plagiarism.

    Self-plagiarism is the verbatim or near-verbatim reuse (or paraphrasing thereof) of significant portions of one's own copyrighted work without properly citing the original source. Note that self-plagiarism does not apply to publications based on the author's own previous short paper (see Section 3.1.1), 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.

    3.2.2 Author Misrepresentation

    In addition to plagiarism, author misrepresentation is a serious ethics violation and a violation of this Policy. Author misrepresentation occurs when an author of a work inappropriately credits the authors of that Work. One form of author misrepresentation is the listing of authors who did not participate in a meaningful way in the preparation of the Work. Another form of misrepresentation would be omitting the names of authors who did participate in a meaningful way in the creation of the Work without their knowledge and/or against their will.

    A clear definition of authorship is required to enable determination if an author misrepresentation has taken place. PVDLB defines authorship as meeting all four of the following criteria:

  • all authors must have made substantial intellectual contributions to some components of the original work; and
  • all authors have participated in a meaningful way in the drafting and/or revision of the work; and
  • all authors are aware that the work has been submitted for publication; and
  • all authors understand that they could be held accountable for any issues relating to the correctness or integrity of the work, including any potential ethical violations.

    • The set of authors is to be maintained with no alterations during all review and publication cycles of the paper. Justifiable exceptions may be permitted with the approval of the EiCs. Automated tools cannot be listed as authors of the Work.

    3.2.3 Content Falsification and/or Fabrication

    Research should be conducted in the most ethical ways. Content falsification is any form of intentional misrepresentation of results, supporting materials, or references. Content fabrication is fabricating data or results. Each of these acts is dishonest, strictly prohibited by PVLDB, and by generally accepted scientific principles.

    Content falsification has taken place when a Work contains material that was known by one or more of the authors to be false or untrue at the time the Work was submitted for consideration of publication. This includes instances where citations are manufactured or used without actual relevance to the content of the Work; data that has been synthesized, adjusted, padded, or trimmed without the specific details of those modifications described in the Work; synthesized or altered outputs portrayed as actual and without specific details of the alterations included in the Work; cherry picking specific (good or bad) results; and any presentations or claims that are known to be false, but are presented in a manner that would lead the reader to believe they are true and correct.

    In recent years, there has been a rise in the number of automated computer systems capable of generating sections or complete scholarly Works and assisting the author in the creation of scholarly outputs. The use of these tools to produce any Work must be documented as described in this PVLDB Code of Ethics. Using these tools without disclosure is a form of content falsification.

    3.2.4 Author/Reviewer Collusion

    Author/Reviewer collusion occurs when authors or reviewers act to change or influence the result of the review process of a given paper. Non-exhaustive examples of collusion involve:

  • disseminating submission details to some reviewers;
  • reciprocating to reviewers who contacted the author related to his/her submission;
  • seeking confidential information related to the review process;
  • trying to influence the review process of his/her submission (e.g., providing materials for the discussions, writing reviews on behalf of a reviewer, impersonating the reviewer or meta-reviewer, coercing a reviewer to be favorable, offering financial or professional incentives to a reviewer as quid pro quo) for a favorable outcome; etc.

    • Authors must make sure to inform all Conflicts of Interest (CoI) when submitting a paper to PVLDB. COIs should be declared even in the cases of ongoing collaborations that have not yet resulted in a published artifact at the time of the PVLDB submission. Failing to do so will incur penalties related to Author/Reviewer collusion when the unnotified collaboration comes to the public.

    3.3. Notification and Resolution of Unethical Behavior

    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.

    PVLDB places the investigation of each claim of unethical behavior at the highest priority for resolution and action.

    3.3.1 Notifying PVLDB of Alleged Unethical Behavior

    To inform PVLDB of alleged unethical behavior, send an email to one of the current EiCs of PVLDB. The following is the minimum information required for PVLDB to initiate an 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, person who discovered falsified data, etc.);
  • a citation to the PVLDB paper(s) whose authors allegedly engaged in unethical behavior (paper title, author, publication title, date of publication);
  • a citation to the alleged plagiarized paper(s) (in case of plagiarism);
  • indication of specific pages, sections, and/or paragraphs in each work alleged as evidence of the unethical behavior.

    • In addition, PVLDB encourages the submission of the following additional information to aid in its investigation:

  • copies of all papers and/or links to the materials involved in the alleged unethical behavior;
  • additional information regarding how to obtain involved papers that are not published (e.g., a technical report or an online posting);
  • any other information that would help PVLDB efficiently resolve the claim.

    • 3.3.2 Investigation

    Upon receipt of an allegation of unethical behavior, 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 EiCs who were 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.
  • ask for data from other conferences and/or journals to support the investigation.

    • Once the investigation has been completed, the EiCs will determine the penalties to be imposed depending on the level of the violation as defined in Section 3.3.6 of this policy.

    3.3.3 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 a timely and effective resolution, details of a claim will be circulated to individuals on a need-to-know basis (e.g., see Section 3.3.2). 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 claim of unethical behavior to the general public.

    3.3.4 Results of an Investigation

    Once a decision has been reached, it will be communicated to all parties immediately by the EiCs. If unethical behavior 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 the determined penalties will be enforced.

    3.3.5 Appeals

    All appeals must be made in writing (by email) to the Managing Editor no more than 30 days from the date of notification. All appeals must include supporting documentation of the claimed new pieces of evidence.

    Once a determination of unethical behavior has been made, the EiCs may decide to make the author's names and paper title known to the public.

    3.3.6 Penalties

    When unethical behavior has been found to have occurred, PVLDB will take the actions listed below as determined by the type and severity of the unethical behavior. Unless determined otherwise during the investigation, all authors are deemed to be individually and collectively responsible for the content of a paper that engaged in unethical behavior.

    Level I - Incidental violation

  • An incidental violation occurs when an action violates PVLDB policy through a correctable mistake, or there is a demonstrable lack of intentional misconduct. This finding serves as an official warning for future consideration.
  • Published items (in PVLDB) will be updated with a corrigendum noting the reasons for change and addressing the issue. Unpublished items under consideration may be revised and resubmitted, or rejected without further consideration, at the discretion of the EiCs. Any and all corrections shall be done in a manner consistent with the PVLDB Policy on Errata Notes and Retractions.

    • Level II - Low-level violation

  • A low-level violation occurs when an action violates PVLDB Policy and the harm requires retraction for mitigation. A low-level violation does not require intention and can result from mistakes or carelessness, but the accused accepts responsibility for the action.
  • Published items (in PVLDB) directly related to the violation(s) will be retracted. Unpublished items directly related to the violation(s) will be rejected without further review. Any and all corrections shall be done in a manner consistent with the PVLDB Policy on Errata Notes and Retractions.

    • Level III - Moderate violation

  • A moderate violation occurs when an action violates PVLDB Policy in a way that a reasonable person would have known that the conduct was inappropriate.
  • Published items (in PVLDB) directly related to the violation(s) will be retracted. Unpublished items directly related to the violation(s) will be rejected without further review.
  • The violator(s) will be banned from contributing to PVLDB for one year. This embargo includes submitting new papers to PVLDB, as well as participating in other leading roles in PVLDB, such as Reviewers, Associate Editors, EiCs, Advisory Board, etc.

    • Level IV - Significant violation

  • A significant violation occurs when there is evidence that the misconduct was intentional or repeated. Refusal to cooperate with an investigation in which there is some evidence of intentional misconduct of a lesser violation can result in a finding of a significant violation.
  • Published items (in PVLDB) directly related to the violation(s) will be retracted. Unpublished items directly related to the violation(s) will be rejected without further review.
  • The violator(s) will be banned from contributing to PVLDB for the next two years. This embargo includes submitting new papers to PVLDB, as well as participating in other leading roles in PVLDB, such as Reviewers, Associate Editors, EiCs, Advisory Board, etc.

    • Level V - Severe violation

  • A severe violation occurs when there is evidence of egregious or repeated significant misconduct.
  • Published items (in PVLDB) directly related to the violation(s) will be retracted. Unpublished items directly related to the violation(s) will be rejected without further review.
  • The violator(s) will be banned from contributing to PVLDB for the next five years. This embargo includes submitting new papers to PVLDB, as well as participating in other leading roles in PVLDB, such as Reviewers, Associate Editors, EiCs, Advisory Board, etc.

    • Combined Violations

    Multiple violations may be combined into a single penalty, or they may be assigned separately depending on the circumstances. If the penalties are assigned separately and the penalties include multiple bans on contribution, the bans may be designated as consecutive bans, if appropriate.

    Disclaimer

    Should the authors refuse to comply with the imposed penalties (e.g., if they refuse to write a formal letter of apology) or if it is determined during the investigation that there have been multiple violations of any of the above forms of unethical behavior 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.

    In any of the cases described in this policy, if the paper has been awarded, the EiCs, in conjunction with the PVLDB Advisory Board, will decide on the fate of the award.

    4 Policy on Errata Notes and Retractions

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

    (A) Errata Note: A short note that 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 anyone 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 Editors-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, other unethical behavior, or major errors in results that go beyond the scope of a correction), the authors or the Editors-­in-Chief may decide to retract a paper. The cases where Editors-in-Chief may decide to retract a paper are detailed in the PVLDB Code of Ethics for Authors.

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

    4.1 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 EiCs to notify them of the submission.

    4.2 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 kept online , but the PDF will be modified to include a clear mark that denotes the retracted status of the paper. A retraction note will also be added to the PVLDB webpage of the retracted paper.

    4.3 Review Procedure for Errata Notes from Original Authors

    The responsible editor (one of the EiCs 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.

    4.4 Review Procedure for Errata Notes from Others

    Errata notes from anyone other than the original authors will be reviewed as below.

  • The EiCs 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 EiCs 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 EiCs 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 EiCs 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.

    • 4.5 Procedure for Retraction

    In the case of retraction requests, after verifying the reasons for retraction (such as unethical behavior, or requests from the author for retraction due to significant errors), the EiC may make a decision on retraction. Decisions to retract a paper will follow the procedures of investigation and allow for appeals as described in the PVLDB Code of Ethics for Authors.

    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 EiCs, the author's name in the retraction note would be “Editors 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 kept in the PVLDB site, the PDF will be modified to include a clear mark that denotes the retracted status of the paper. A retraction note will also be added to the PVLDB webpage of the retracted paper.
  • ACM DL or other sites with which PVLDB has an agreement for hosting PVLDB papers will be notified of the retraction.

    • 5 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 co-authors:
    "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."

    PVLDB is part of the VLDB Endowment Inc.

    Privacy Policy