Full Paper Submission

Guideline for Submission

The submitted paper to the conference must not be previously published, and not considered elsewhere for publication.

The editorial workflow for every manuscript submitted to the ICASEE-27 conference is outlined below, detailing the process of the peer review by at least 3 potential reviewers. The entire editorial workflow is facilitated through the online submission system. Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial check by the journal's editorial office to verify that:

1. The files are complete, and relevant metadata is in order.
2. The paper aligns with one of the scopes of the conference.
3. The similarity percentage is below the conference and journal's stipulated requirements.

Following this verification, the manuscript is assigned to a Sectional Editor based on their subject expertise. The Sectional Editor conducts an initial assessment before inviting potential 3 reviewers to provide a peer-review report. (The Sectional Editor may reject a manuscript before review if deemed unsuitable.)

1. Reviewer Selection/Assignment for The Successfully Evaluated Papers

The selection of reviewers from the scientific committee members of the ICASEE-27 conference is critical for maintaining the conference's academic rigor and credibility. Leveraging the expertise of committee members, reviewers are systematically chosen based on their alignment with the conference's themes and topics. Diversity across academic backgrounds and geographical locations ensures inclusivity and comprehensive coverage. Careful consideration is given to impartiality and conflict of interest to uphold the integrity of the peer review process. The selection process optimizes reviewer expertise and fosters a transparent and rigorous evaluation process within the ICASEE-27 conference framework through collaboration between organizers, committee members, and stakeholders.

2. Based On The Referee Reports, The Sectional Editor Makes One Of The Following Recommendations:

• Reject the paper based on the attached comments.
• Needs Major Revision - the report is attached. The paper may need resubmission for further review.
• Needs Minor Revision - the report is attached.
• Publish without modifications - very basic recommendations could be observed.

If the Sectional Editor recommends "Reject," the authors are sent any review reports received. They are informed that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in any of the publication partners in the conference.

If the Sectional Editor recommends "Needs Major Revision," the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers. This may involve collecting new data or making substantial revisions to the text. One or more original reviewers then reassess the manuscript before the Sectional Editor makes a new recommendation.

If the Sectional Editor recommends "Needs Minor Revision," the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Once the Sectional Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, optionally seeking further advice from one or more reviewers, the Academic Editor can recommend "Publish without Alterations."

If the Sectional Editor recommends "Publish without Modifications," the manuscript undergoes a final check by the publication partners’ editorial office to ensure adherence to the publication partners’ guidelines and policies in both the content and review process. Upon completion, the authors are notified of the manuscript's acceptance.