Submission  Online

The abstract/ paper should be submitted through:

Review Process

Review Process of Paper Submission 

  • Peer review of papers is undertaken through processes administered by the organizers and proceedings editors. The type of peer review is double-blind review by two reputable reviewers in Industrial Engineering field.The author(s) were not informed who their reviewers are, as well as the two reviewers were also not known about the author(s).
  • The paper committee assigned a submission to any reviewer outside the author’s own institution.
  • Some of the submissions with significantly different results in review (for example got accept and reject decision at the same time), were then reviewed by the third additional reviewer.

Reviewers consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers: 

1. Technical Criteria 

  • Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness. 
  • Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts. 
  • Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing. 

2. Quality Criteria

  • Originality: Is the work relevant and novel? 
  • Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results. 
  • Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published? 
  • Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

3. Presentation Criteria 

  • Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the paper? 
  • Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the paper? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service? 
  • Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear? 
  • Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be omitted. 
  • Conclusion: Does the paper contain a carefully written conclusion, summarizing what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?