Impact Research Communications (IRC) and the scientific committee members
ensure a
rigorous, high-quality, and unbiased peer review process for all abstracts submitted to the
conference. The decision regarding the acceptance of abstracts will be made by a panel of
expert
reviewers, session chairs, and/or the conference chairman, with an emphasis on the novelty
and
meaningful contributions of the findings and/or conclusions.
The committee will decide whether each abstract is more appropriate for an oral or poster
presentation. Eligibility for presentation type will be determined by the total score, with
adjustments made for variations in scoring behaviour among referees.
The committee employs a single- or double-blind peer review process for all submitted
abstracts,
maintaining the anonymity of both the reviewers and the authors.
The peer review process for abstracts involves the
following
steps:
1. All submitted abstracts are initially reviewed by the internal editorial team to ensure
they
adhere to the conference scope. Abstracts that pass this initial screening are then assigned
to the
session chair/review committee for further evaluation.
2. The session chair/review committee determines whether reviews from appropriate
independent
experts/reviewers are necessary to evaluate the abstract. While external reviewers evaluate
the
majority of submissions, the session chair/review committee decides the number of required
reviews.
3. Upon receiving the reviews, the session chair/review committee decides whether to accept,
reject,
or request revisions for a manuscript based on the reviewers' comments. Authors are given 14
days to
resubmit revised abstracts if the decision is a minor or major revision.
4. Abstracts submitted by invited and/or keynote speakers will be reviewed by the conference
chairman.
Criteria to be Considered for Scoring
1. Originality of concept/approach and level of innovativeness
2. Significance/impact/relevance to the conference theme
3. Quality of research design/theoretical argument
4. Conclusions and interpretations of results
5. Presentation style: coherence and clarity of structure
