Peer Review Process

Plagiarism Check Process:

  1. Pre-Review Screening: Upon submission, each paper is subjected to a preliminary plagiarism scan using advanced plagiarism detection software. This initial check helps in identifying any significant issues of similarity with previously published work.
  2. Software and Tools: We utilize reputable plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate, which are widely recognized for their efficiency and accuracy in scanning academic and research documents against an extensive database of published material.
  3. Similarity Index: The plagiarism report generated by the detection software provides a similarity index, which is a percentage of the text in the submission that matches existing sources. This index helps in assessing the level of originality of the paper.
  4. Maximum Allowed Similarity Percentage: We have set a maximum allowed similarity index of 15%. This threshold is designed to account for common phrases, technical terms, and bibliographic references, which are naturally expected to have some level of similarity with existing literature. It's important to note that the similarity index is considered in the context of the entire document, and a higher percentage of similarity does not automatically imply plagiarism. Each case is evaluated individually, considering the nature of the matched content and its significance within the document.
  5. Handling High Similarity Scores: Submissions that exceed the maximum allowed similarity index undergo a more detailed review to determine the nature of the matched content. If significant portions of the paper are found to be inadequately original or improperly attributed, the submission may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision. In cases of minor issues, authors may be asked to revise the problematic sections and resubmit their paper.

Through this rigorous plagiarism check process, we aim to maintain the integrity and quality of the research presented at our summit, ensuring that all contributions are both original and respectful of intellectual property rights.

Review Process

The conference upholds a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the highest quality of contributions. Each submission undergoes a thorough evaluation by the proceedings editor for relevance to the summit’s focus. Two independent international experts then review accepted papers and assess their suitability for presentation. Our commitment to excellence is reflected in our selective acceptance rate of 70%.

Overview of the Process:

  1. Initial Screening: Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the summit’s editorial team to ensure it aligns with its scope and adheres to our submission guidelines.
  2. Double-Blind Review: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review
  3. Reviewer Selection: We engage independent international experts recognized in their respective fields to provide unbiased and constructive feedback to enhance the work.
  4. Review Outcomes: The possible outcomes of the review process are:
    1. Acceptance without revisions.
    2. Acceptance with minor revisions.
    3. Acceptance with major revisions.
    4. Rejection due to scientific inadequacy or lack of fit with the summit’s themes.
  5. Revision: Authors may be asked to revise their manuscripts based on the reviewers’ feedback. Revised manuscripts will be re-evaluated to ensure all reviewer comments are addressed.
  6. Final Decision: The summit's editorial board will make the final decision on the acceptance of the manuscript, considering the reviewers’ recommendations.
  7. Notification: Authors will be notified of the decision and provided with the reviewers’ comments.

Ethical Considerations:

  1. Our peer review process adheres to the ethical guidelines the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) provided.
  2. We employ plagiarism detection software to ensure the originality of the submitted work.

Reviewer Responsibilities:

  1. Reviewers must provide constructive feedback to help the authors improve their work.
  2. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality about the manuscripts they review.
  3. Conflicts of interest must be disclosed, and the reviewer will be excused from the assignment.

We value peer review's critical role in maintaining scientific discourse's quality and integrity. Our process is designed to be fair, objective, and constructive, with the goal of advancing knowledge within the field of sustainable sciences.