EDITORIAL POLICY

1. Review Procedure

The reviews were double-blind. Each submission was examined by at least 2 reviewer(s) independently.

The submissions were first screened for generic quality and suitableness as well as plagiarism check using Turnitin software. After the initial screening, they were sent for peer review by matching each paper’s topic with the reviewers’ expertise, taking into account any competing interests. A paper could only be considered for acceptance if it had received favourable recommendations from the two reviewers.

Authors of a rejected submission were given the opportunity to revise and resubmit after addressing the reviewers’ comments. The acceptance or rejection of a revised manuscript was final.

2. Quality Criteria

Reviewers were instructed to assess the quality of submissions solely based on the academic merit of their content along the following dimensions

1.      Pertinence of the article’s content to the scope and themes of the conference;

2.      Clear demonstration of originality, novelty, and timeliness of the research;

3.      Soundness of the methods, analyses, and results;

4.      Adherence to the ethical standards and codes of conduct relevant to the research field;

5.      Clarity, cohesion, and accuracy in language and other modes of expression, including figures and tables.

In addition, all of the articles have been checked for textual overlap in an effort to detect possible signs of plagiarism by the publisher. 

3. Competing Interests

Neither the Editor-in-Chief nor any member of the Scientific Committee declares any competing interest.