Peer Review Policy
All  conferences adhere to a rigorous multi-round peer-review process, similar to that of scholarly journals. This process has been recognized by our publishing partners, as demonstrated by our detailed peer-review data submissions from previous conferences.

​

Guidelines for Authors

• Abstract: The abstract must include the following components: (a) Objective(s); (b) Method(s)/Solution; (c) Key results/metrics (no more than 2 sentences); (d) Brief conclusions. The maximum allowable length is 200 words.

• Introduction: Ensure that the introduction addresses (a) Context; and (b) The importance and motivation of the article.

• Literature Review/Related Work/Background: Check for the following key elements: (a) Major works, their motivations, and findings; (b) Knowledge gaps in the existing literature; (c) The relevance of the cited literature to current research.

• Key Contributions: The article should clearly highlight at least one key contribution, demonstrating how the authors have added to the existing body of knowledge.

• Methods/Experiments: Assess how the presented methods and experiments support the paper’s hypothesis or claims.

• Results & Discussion: Tables, figures, and plots must be thoroughly discussed, and their relevance to the hypothesis and claims should be explicitly stated. In observational or report-style papers, the key observations should be clearly mentioned.

• Conclusions: Summarize the main contributions of the paper, along with the relevant results that support the validity of the hypothesis or claims.

• References: Ensure that all references are in English, in the prescribed format, and include DOIs or relevant links where applicable.

• Self-Citation: Limit self-citations to no more than three of your own works.

• Images/Plots/Artwork: Ensure all visuals are legible to the audience, and the font size in plots is at least as large as the figure captions.