ICMEEA 2027 · Author submission hub
Paper Submission Guidelines
Regular length 7 pages
Paper Format
Submission and Review
All submissions will undergo a double-blind peer-review process. Papers will be evaluated based on their originality, relevance, and academic quality. Accepted papers may require revisions in accordance with reviewers' comments before publication in the conference proceedings.
- Submit Your Paper via CIC submission system
Dual Submission Policy
Papers currently under review, previously published, or accepted for publication elsewhere are not eligible for submission. Authors must not submit the same paper to another venue during the ICMEEA 2027 review period.
Review Process
The proceeding adheres to a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:
1. Manuscript Allocation: Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to 2–3 independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.
2. Initial Screening (1 week): Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.
3. In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:
• A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)
• Constructive comments for improvement
• A confidential recommendation to the Editor
4. Decision-Making & Conflict Resolution: The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of 40%, which balances selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive a decision within 1-week post-review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision (2-month revision window).
6. Revisions & Appeals：Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within 2 weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.
Review Criteria
Reviewers will evaluate submissions based on the following criteria:
1. Originality and Innovation
- Novelty of ideas, methods, and research findings.
2. Technical Quality
- Soundness of methodology, rigor of analysis, and reliability of results.
3. Relevance and Contribution
- Alignment with the conference topics and contribution to the relevant research fields.
4. Clarity and Presentation
- Organization, readability, academic writing, and quality of references.
5. Significance and Ethics
- Research impact, practical value, and compliance with relevant ethical standards.
Reviewers will provide evaluations and constructive feedback to support the selection and improvement of submitted papers.
Ethics & Transparency
COPE Compliance: All participants follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines.
Gender/Geographic Inclusion: Reviewers evaluate whether gender, race, or geographic factors are appropriately addressed.
Diversity Auditors: 2 committee members monitor demographic balance in accepted papers quarterly.
AI Usage: AI tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, statistical error flags) assist but never replace human judgment.