Peer Review Process

  • Submissions must be prepared in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
  • To submit an abstract, authors must create an account. They can then submit their abstract by logging into their account. The manuscript (full paper) can only be submitted after the author has submitted their abstract. The complete submission process is done though online (NOT via email) to ensure accountability and smooth administration.
  • Manuscripts will be returned to the authors without scientific evaluation due to several circumstances: doesn’t meet submission requirements, incorrect format, or unable to be downloaded reliably;
  • Submissions must represent original and independent work from the authors, and authors must disclose the contributions of all authors in the article.
  • New submissions undergo a pre-evaluation by the Scientific Committee using the Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) to determine whether the article aligns with the topic and scope of the conference.
  • We will reject articles that are poorly presented, unclear, or suspected of plagiarizing other work (please see our plagiarism policy).
  • After passing the initial screening, articles will be sent to two independent reviewers for peer review.
  • Single-blind review is applied, where the reviewers know the identity of the authors but the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit consent of the reviewers.
  • The Scientific Committee will review the reviewer comments and provide an explanation to the authors. If revisions are requested, the corresponding author must submit a revised manuscript within two weeks.
  • The final decision is made by the Scientific Committee based on information obtained through the peer review process.
  • We ensure that reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially before publication, as described in our publication ethics.
  • Research question: why the authors conducted this research and its significance and applications.
  • Novelty: the paper presents new ideas, derivations, or applications that have not been studied previously or have received little or no in-depth study.
  • Literature review: to identify research gaps with recent references from 2015 onwards.
  • Research methodology: analytical, numerical, experimental, or mixed. What are the authors’ contributions, assumptions and/or estimates used, description of the equipment and its limitations, experimental steps, etc.
  • Quality of results: and the depth and logic of the discussion.
  • Insight conveyed and recommendations that might be used by others for future work.
  • English: used effectively to communicate the ideas and easy to understand with least or no grammatical error or typos.

There are three types of editorial decisions during the peer review process: Reject submission, Revisions required, and Accept submission.

After peer review, the paper is deemed unacceptable for publication, and resubmission is not possible.

The article requires revisions before a final decision can be made. The authors are requested to enhance their article based on the comments received from the reviewer and submit a revised version for consideration within two weeks after receiving the decision from the scientific committee. The article may undergo further peer review, and if the authors do not revise their paper to the scientific committe’s satisfaction, the article can still be rejected.

The paper has been accepted for publication, and minor editing changes and amendments are still possible to ensure that the paper fully meets our criteria. After final review by the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed, and the paper is forwarded to the publisher.

The final print proof will be sent to the corresponding author for final review. Corrections to the final version are limited to minor corrections related to text, equations, or grammar, which will be confirmed with the author. The proof should be returned to the scientific committee within three days of receipt. It is the responsibility of the author to review the content at this stage.

Submit Your Paper

For Author

*Doc Format