- 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 submission undergoes pre-evaluation by the Scientific Committee using Manuscript Readiness Level (MRL) to determine the article is suitable for the conference’s topic and scope.
- We will reject articles that are poorly presented, unclear, or suspected of being plagiarized from other works (please refer to our plagiarism policy).
- After passing the initial screening, the article will be send to two independent reviewers for peer review.
- A single-blind review is implemented, where the reviewers know the authors’ identities but the authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
- Peer review comments are confidential and will only be disclosed with explicit consent from the reviewers.
- The Scientific Committee will examine the reviewer’s comments and provide explanations to the authors. If revisions are invited, the corresponding author must submit the revised manuscript within 2 weeks.
- The final decision is made by the Scientific Committee based on the information obtained through the peer-review process.
- We ensure that reviewed manuscripts are treated confidentially before publication, as explained in our publication ethics.
- Research question: why the authors do this research and what is its importance and application.
- Novelty: a paper gives new ideas, derivations, applications that has been not studied before or little- or not in depth-studied.
- Literature review: to identify the research gap with recent references from 2015 onwards.
- Research methodology: analytical, numerical or experimental or mixed. What is the contribution of the authors, assumptions and/or approximations used, description of apparatus and its limitations, steps of experiments, 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, Revision required, and Accept submission.
Following peer review, the paper is assessed as not acceptable 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 sub-editing changes and amendments are still possible to ensure that the paper fully meets our criteria. After the final review at the editorial office, the acceptance is confirmed, and the paper is forwarded to the publisher.
The galley proof will be sent to the corresponding author for final checking. Corrections to the final version are limited to minor corrections related to changes in the 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.