Submission of Papers
Authors are invited to submit their full papers using the designated online submission system before the
due date. Each submission must comply with the length and formatting standard guidelines provided in the
call for papers. All information regarding the authors’ identity shall be excluded upon submission.
Initial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo initial screening by the conference editorial team to ensure
compliance with submission guidelines and basic quality standards. Manuscripts that do not fit within the
scope of the conference, do not strictly follow submission guidelines, or are deemed unqualified for
publication will be rejected without further review.
Assignment to Reviewers
Each manuscript passing the initial screening is assigned to a panel of at least two independent reviewers
with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected from a pool of qualified academics and
professionals. The editorial team members act in advisory roles, providing feedback as reviewers and making
suggestions to improve the manuscript.
Peer Review Process
The conference provides a review template that includes several criteria to consider when assessing the
manuscript. Reviewers evaluate the papers based on criteria such as originality, technical quality, clarity of
presentation, and relevance to the conference themes. Additionally, Each reviewer provides detailed
comments for improving author(s) works and recommends acceptance, revision, or rejection. The conference
policy is to send reviewers’ comments to the authors in their original form. However, the conference editor
reserves the right to edit reviewers’ comments, without consulting the reviewers, if they contain offensive
language, confidential information or recommendations for publication.
The reviewers may also provide comments to the editors regarding the reviewed manuscript, and the
editors will not disclose any comments to the author(s).
The conference uses a double-blind peer review policy and maintains the confidentiality of all
unpublished manuscripts. Editors and reviewers will not:
- Disclose the reviewers’ identity unless the reviewer makes a reasonable request for such disclosure.
- Discuss the manuscript or its contents with anyone not directly involved with the manuscript or its peer
review. - Use any data or information from the manuscript for their own work or publications.
- Use information from the peer review process to provide an advantage to themselves or anyone else or
disadvantage any individual or organisation.
In addition, reviewers will only reveal their identity to the manuscript’s authors or involve anyone else in
the review after first requesting permission from the editor
Review Consolidation
The editorial team consolidates the feedback from all reviewers for each paper. In cases of significant
discrepancy between reviewers, additional reviews may be solicited, or a discussion may be facilitated to
reach a consensus.
Decision Making
Based on the consolidated reviews, the editorial team decides on each paper: accept, minor revision,
major revision, or reject. Papers requiring revisions are sent back to the authors with specific feedback and a
deadline for resubmission.
If a manuscript satisfies the conference’s requirements and contributes significantly to the published
literature, the conference editor may recommend acceptance for publication in the conference proceeding.
The acceptance criteria are based on several issues where the manuscript must:
- be within the subject area of the conference’s scope and otherwise appropriate
- be original
- includes the abstract that summarises the aim, method, and findings of the discussed research
- provide the research urgency, contribution and adequate literature review
- have a high-quality research design
- have appropriate data analyses
- adequate discussion of the research results
- contain legitimate conclusions
- contain practical or managerial implications
- be free of ethical issues
If a manuscript does not meet the conference’s requirements for acceptance or revision, including
attending to all relevant aspects described in the acceptance criteria, the conference editor may recommend
rejection.
In cases where the editor is the author of a manuscript submitted to the conference, another editorial
team member is responsible for making the final decision on the manuscript’s suitability for publication in
the conference proceedings. A manuscript authored by an editor of the conference is subject to the same high
standards of peer review and editorial decision-making as any manuscript.
Any conference editorial board member who is an author of a submitted manuscript is excluded from the
peer review process. Within the manuscript submission and tracking system, they will be able to see their
manuscript as an author but not as an editor, thereby maintaining the confidentiality of peer review.
Revision and Resubmission:
Authors of the papers requiring revisions should resubmit their revised manuscripts by the given
deadline. Revised papers undergo a secondary review process or more to ensure that the required changes
have been satisfactorily addressed.
Final Selection:
The editorial team makes the final decision on the manuscript considering the peer review results.
Authors of accepted papers are notified and provided with further instructions for preparing the cameraready version.
Preparation of Proceedings:
Accepted papers are compiled and formatted according to the proceedings’ publication standards.
Authors must ensure that the final version of their paper complies with these standards before inclusion in
the proceedings
Publication:
The final proceedings are published and available to conference participants and the broader academic
community.
Conflicts of interest in peer review:
A conflict of interest exists when actual, perceived or potential circumstances could influence an editor’s
ability to act impartially when assessing a manuscript. Such circumstances might include having a personal or
professional relationship with an author, working on the same topic or in direct competition with an author,
having a financial stake in the work or its publication, or having seen previous versions of the manuscript.
Members of the conference’s editorial board and reviewers undertake or are asked to declare any conflicts
of interest when handling manuscripts. An editor or reviewer who declares a conflict of interest is unassigned
from the manuscript in question and is replaced by a new editor or reviewer. Editors try to avoid conflicts of
interest when inviting reviewers, but identifying potential bias is not always possible.