We as members, contributors, and leaders pledge to make participation in the Z Framework community a harassment-free experience for everyone, regardless of age, body size, visible or invisible disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation.

We pledge to act and interact in ways that contribute to an open, welcoming, diverse, inclusive, and healthy community.

Examples of behavior that contributes to a positive environment for our community include:

Professional Conduct:

• Demonstrating empathy and kindness toward other people
• Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences
• Giving and gracefully accepting constructive feedback
• Accepting responsibility and apologizing to those affected by our mistakes
• Focusing on what is best not just for us as individuals, but for the overall community

Scientific Integrity:

• Maintaining rigorous mathematical and computational standards
• Providing honest, accurate reporting of research findings
• Acknowledging limitations and uncertainties in work
• Giving proper credit and attribution to others' contributions
• Supporting reproducible research practices

Collaborative Research:

• Sharing knowledge and resources openly
• Encouraging participation from researchers at all levels
• Providing constructive peer review and feedback
• Supporting educational and learning opportunities
• Fostering interdisciplinary collaboration

Examples of unacceptable behavior include:

Personal Conduct:

• The use of sexualized language or imagery, and sexual attention or advances of any kind
• Trolling, insulting or derogatory comments, and personal or political attacks
• Public or private harassment
• Publishing others' private information, such as a physical or email address, without their explicit permission
• Other conduct which could reasonably be considered inappropriate in a professional setting

Academic Misconduct:

• Plagiarism or misrepresentation of others' work
• Fabrication or falsification of data or results
• Misrepresentation of research findings or statistical significance
• Failure to acknowledge significant contributions from others
• Violation of research ethics or scientific integrity

Technical Misconduct:

• Deliberately introducing errors or vulnerabilities
• Misrepresenting code functionality or performance
• Failing to follow established mathematical or computational standards
• Ignoring peer review feedback without justification
• Submitting work that doesn't meet minimum quality standards

Community leaders are responsible for clarifying and enforcing our standards of acceptable behavior and will take appropriate and fair corrective action in response to any behavior that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful.

Community leaders have the right and responsibility to remove, edit, or reject comments, commits, code, wiki edits, issues, and other contributions that are not aligned to this Code of Conduct, and will communicate reasons for moderation decisions when appropriate.

This Code of Conduct applies within all community spaces, and also applies when an individual is officially representing the community in public spaces. Examples of representing our community include using an official e-mail address, posting via an official social media account, or acting as an appointed representative at an online or offline event.

This Code of Conduct also applies to research conducted using the Z Framework, including:

• Research publications citing or using the framework
• Conference presentations and academic discussions
• Collaborative research projects
• Educational applications and materials

Community leaders will follow these Community Impact Guidelines in determining the consequences for any action they deem in violation of this Code of Conduct:

Community Impact: Use of inappropriate language or other behavior deemed unprofessional or unwelcome in the community.

Consequence: A private, written warning from community leaders, providing clarity around the nature of the violation and an explanation of why the behavior was inappropriate. A public apology may be requested.

Research Context: Minor issues with documentation, code quality, or professional communication that can be addressed through guidance and correction.

Community Impact: A violation through a single incident or series of actions.

Consequence: A warning with consequences for continued behavior. No interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, for a specified period of time. This includes avoiding interactions in community spaces as well as external channels like social media. Violating these terms may lead to a temporary or permanent ban.

Research Context: Issues with research methodology, failure to meet quality standards, or repeated violations of community guidelines that impact collaborative research.

Community Impact: A serious violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior.

Consequence: A temporary ban from any sort of interaction or public communication with the community for a specified period of time. No public or private interaction with the people involved, including unsolicited interaction with those enforcing the Code of Conduct, is allowed during this period. Violating these terms may lead to a permanent ban.

Research Context: Serious violations of research integrity, academic misconduct, or behavior that undermines the scientific credibility of the community.

Community Impact: Demonstrating a pattern of violation of community standards, including sustained inappropriate behavior, harassment of an individual, or aggression toward or disparagement of classes of individuals.

Consequence: A permanent ban from any sort of public interaction within the community.

Research Context: Severe academic misconduct, repeated violations of research ethics, or behavior that fundamentally undermines the scientific mission of the project.

Required Standards:

• All research claims must be supported by appropriate evidence
• Statistical significance requirements must be met (p < 10⁻⁶)
• High-precision computational standards must be maintained
• Reproducibility documentation must be complete
• Limitations and uncertainties must be clearly stated

Data Management:

• Research data must be properly documented and preserved
• Data sharing should follow open science principles when possible
• Privacy and confidentiality requirements must be respected
• Data integrity must be maintained throughout analysis

Publication Ethics:

• Proper attribution must be given to all contributors
• Conflicts of interest must be disclosed
• Previous work must be properly cited
• Results must be reported honestly and completely

Review Responsibilities:

• Provide constructive, detailed feedback
• Maintain confidentiality of submitted work
• Avoid conflicts of interest
• Review work promptly and thoroughly
• Focus on technical and scientific merit

Review Process:

• Mathematical accuracy verification required
• Computational validation must be confirmed
• Documentation quality must be assessed
• Reproducibility must be verified
• Statistical claims must be validated

We strive to create a community that:

• Welcomes researchers from all backgrounds and experience levels
• Provides mentorship and learning opportunities
• Supports diverse approaches to mathematical and computational research
• Encourages interdisciplinary collaboration
• Values both theoretical rigor and practical applications

Our commitment to scientific excellence includes:

• Maintaining the highest standards of mathematical accuracy
• Requiring robust statistical validation for all empirical claims
• Implementing high-precision computational methods
• Supporting reproducible research practices
• Encouraging independent verification of results

We promote open science through:

• Open source software development
• Public availability of research data when appropriate
• Transparent research methodologies
• Collaborative peer review processes
• Educational resource sharing

If you are subject to or witness unacceptable behavior, or have any other concerns, please notify the community leaders as soon as possible through:

• GitHub Issues: For public technical discussions
• GitHub Discussions: For community questions and concerns
• Direct Contact: For private or sensitive matters (contact information available in repository)

All reports will be handled with discretion and confidentiality. Community leaders are obligated to respect the privacy and security of the reporter of any incident.

1. Initial Report: Contact community leaders through appropriate channels
2. Assessment: Community leaders will assess the situation and determine appropriate response
3. Investigation: If needed, a thorough investigation will be conducted
4. Resolution: Appropriate action will be taken based on findings
5. Follow-up: Ongoing monitoring to ensure resolution effectiveness

• Technical Support: Available through GitHub Issues and documentation
• Community Support: Available through GitHub Discussions
• Mentorship: Available for new contributors and researchers
• Conflict Resolution: Mediation services available for disputes

This Code of Conduct is adapted from the Contributor Covenant, version 2.0, available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/version/2/0/code_of_conduct.html.

Additional scientific integrity and research ethics guidelines are adapted from:

• National Science Foundation Research Ethics Guidelines
• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Guidelines
• International Association of Research Integrity Organizations Standards

Community Impact Guidelines were inspired by Mozilla's code of conduct enforcement ladder.

For answers to common questions about this code of conduct, see the FAQ at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/faq. Translations are available at https://www.contributor-covenant.org/translations.

This Code of Conduct is reviewed annually and updated as needed to reflect:

• Community growth and evolution
• Changes in research practices and standards
• Feedback from community members
• Best practices from other scientific communities

Current Version: 2.1
Last Updated: August 2025
Next Review: August 2026
Contact: Community leaders through GitHub repository channels