Conference Editorial and
Publication Workflow
A transparent, multi-stage peer review and publication process ensuring the highest standards of academic integrity, originality, and scholarly quality.
Stage 1
Pre-Conference and Abstract Selection
01
Abstract Submission and Screening
Authors submit a 200–300 word abstract for initial evaluation. Track editors perform a rapid human check to ensure alignment with the conference tracks. Abstracts that pass the alignment check are forwarded to the review committee.
Aligned — Proceeds to committee
Not aligned — Desk-rejected
02
Decision and Confirmation
The committee routes screened abstracts to editors to initiate a rigorous double-blind peer review process involving 3 independent reviewers. Acceptance is granted under one of three conditions. If accepted with changes, the abstract is returned to the author for revision. Once fully accepted, an official Acceptance Letter is issued within one week.
Accept without changes
Accept with minor changes
Accept with major changes
Reject
03
Program Scheduling
Confirmed abstracts are officially compiled into the localised abstract booklet and assigned a presentation time slot in the conference programme.
Stage 2
Stage 2
During the Conference
04
Live Presentation and Peer Feedback
Authors present their work live to the audience and session chairs. Reviewers and peers engage in Q and A to provide constructive critique, point out methodological gaps, or suggest data additions. This live session directly informs the full paper.
05
Attendance Validation Gate
Only authors who successfully present their work at the conference may advance to the full paper submission phase. This gate ensures the integrity of the review process.
Mandatory gate: Authors who do not present their work at the conference are not eligible to submit a full paper, regardless of abstract acceptance status.
Stage 3
Stage 3
Post-Conference Technical Screening
06
Full Paper Submission and Formatting Check
Presenters submit a 6–8 page full manuscript, integrating feedback received during their live session. The Technical Editor checks full layout compliance against the official conference template before the paper proceeds.
07
Plagiarism and Integrity Screening
Compliant papers are processed through Turnitin to verify originality. Papers that fail the threshold are desk-rejected or returned to the author for a mandatory rewrite.
Similarity index must be ≤ 15% (excluding references).
Passes — Advances to peer review
Fails — Desk-rejected or mandatory rewrite
Stage 4
Stage 4
Peer Review and Final Production
08
Reviewer Assignment
Track editors match each clean paper with 3 independent reviewers based on subject expertise, ensuring a thorough and appropriately specialised assessment.
09
Double-Blind Peer Review and Decision
Reviewers evaluate the paper's novelty, methodology, and ethical compliance. The Track Editor then issues a formal editorial decision. Authors accepted with revisions must address all reviewer comments before re-submission.
Accept
Accept with revisions
Reject
10
Revision and Verification
Authors submit their revised papers alongside a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document. The Track Editor verifies that all reviewer feedback has been satisfactorily addressed before the paper is cleared for final production.
11
Copyediting, Typesetting and Indexing
Accepted manuscripts enter the final production pipeline, including professional copyediting, page typesetting, and indexing for final publication in the conference proceedings.