The Peer-Review process
All articles submitted within the deadlines and per the guidelines will be subjected to a single-blind review. Papers that are out of scope, incomplete, or lack sufficient evidence to support the basic claims may be rejected without full review. Furthermore, reviewers will be asked to comment on whether the length is appropriate for the contribution. Each of the submitted articles will be reviewed by at least three members of the Scientific Committee.
After completion of the review process, the authors will be informed about the acceptance or rejection of the submitted work. The reviewers’ comments will be available to the authors in both cases. In case of acceptance, authors must meet the recommendations for improvement and prepare and submit the definitive version of the work up to the camera-ready paper submission deadline. In case of failure to consider the recommendations made by the reviewers, the organizing committee and the editors reserve the right not to include these works in the conference proceedings.
The article’s final version must follow the appropriate style guide and contain the authors’ data (names, institutions and emails) and the ORCID details. Submitted articles will be evaluated according to their originality, technical soundness, significance of findings, contribution to knowledge, and clarity of exposition and organisation.
According to the quality of the accepted article and its rank among all the other accepted manuscripts, it can be accepted for a full or short presentation or as a poster.
Code of Ethics
Inspired by the code of ethics put forward by the Association of Computing Machinery, the programme committee, supervised by the general conference chairs and organisers, have the right to desk-reject manuscripts that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, employ unethical research practices, or uncritically present outcomes or implications that disadvantage minoritized communities. Further, reviewers of the scientific committee will be explicitly asked to consider whether the research was conducted in compliance with professional, ethical standards and applicable regulatory guidelines. Failure to do so could lead to a desk-rejection
