Rationale for Manuscript Review
In order to provide more interesting and useful articles to the scientific community in the long run, we have strengthened the standards of judgment of our proceedings editors. In pursuit of this goal, we ensure that our proceedings editors are committed to a rigorous peer review process. Conference organizers and editors have the right to select article reviewers, but all reviewers must have appropriate expertise in their fields. The reviewers selected for our proceedings articles come from trusted institutions, and the review process complies with high ethical standards. By implementing this robust peer review process, the proceedings articles we publish will become important reference materials, recognize editors' contributions, and increase the value of your article in abstracting and indexing services.

 

Manuscript Review Instructions
Proceedings provide greater opportunities than journals in terms of the number of articles that can be published, allowing us to create truly comprehensive proceedings volumes. However, it is always important to remember that we must maintain quality despite the wider scope of proceedings articles. Therefore, we urge all editors and peers to assess each manuscript according to the following minimum criteria rigorously.

 

Contribution: Will this article contribute to developing the scientific literature? What benefits will you get from reading it? Remember, the article's contribution must not necessarily be revolutionary research or previously unpublished information. It can be useful in several ways, such as:

1. Quality Criteria

a) Useful or interesting background information

b) Excellent description or explanation of a complex topic

c) An enjoyable and informative perspective or overview

d) Has excellence (through its thoroughness, accuracy, novelty, or veracity)

e) Is original (has not been previously published and is the author's work). 

 

2. Technical Criteria

a) Include an abstract (with an adequate summary of the paper and an outline of the objectives, results, and conclusions, including conveying adequate understanding when read separately from the paper).

b) Has an adequate title (appropriately describing the article so that reading it alone conveys its nature and content)

c) Have methods that are appropriate to the scope of the study or work.

d) It has a reasonable conclusion (based on the results presented or ideas/concepts discussed). 

e) Clear and concise sentences (well-expressed ideas can be read and understood by the intended reader)

f) Using good and correct English (sufficient to convey knowledge and purpose)

g) Have a minimum number of references of 10, with a composition of primary references of 80%.

h) Follow the existing guidelines (fonts, numbering, and naming of tables and figures.

i) Use the citation style according to the existing circuits (IEEE) and use a reference engine such as Endnote, Zotero, or Mendeley.

j) Poorly written papers will be returned to the author for rewriting or rejected if the author is unable or unwilling to make the suggested improvements.

 

Manuscript Review Process
1. Reviewers appointed by each delegation review manuscripts.
2. Manuscript review is carried out by filling in the assessment form (Link).
3. The manuscript review takes place from October 17 - 19, 2023.