The conference proceedings also welcome review or tutorial articles and other works that provide useful summaries, background information, or introductions to specific fields of research. We also welcome articles that provide a historical perspective or review. The publisher understands that the specifics of the review process will need to be according to the community’s and conference’s traditions or expectations. Keep in mind that although proceedings include a broader range of article types, they should not include poor quality or inferior work that is fundamentally unworthy of publication.
Each manuscript will be evaluated according to the following minimum criteria.
Contribution: Would the publication of the article make a positive contribution to the scientific literature? What would you gain by reading it?
An article’s contribution does not need to be new or unpublished results; for example, it can have the following attributes:
New explanations of familiar topics
Excellent descriptions or explanations of complex subjects
Tutorials or review articles
Useful or interesting background information
Enjoyable and informed historical perspective or overview
Be more than an abstract (we reject 1-page, abstract-only articles)
Have merit (through its rigor, accuracy, or correctness)
Be original (previously unpublished and solely the work of the author)
Include an abstract (with a sufficient summary of the paper and outline of goals, results, and conclusion, including conveying sufficient understanding when read in isolation from the paper)
Have an adequate title (correctly describes the article such that reading it alone would convey the nature and content)
Have reasonable conclusions (based on the results presented, or ideas/concepts discussed)
Is clear and concise (well-expressed ideas readable and understandable by its intended readership)
Uses correct English (sufficiently conveys the science and intent/meaning or purpose)
Poorly written papers will be returned to the authors for re-writing or will be rejected if the author is unable or unwilling to make the recommended improvements.
References will depend on the type of article; however, here are some general questions you may like to consider.
Do the references look appropriate for the topic? Are key papers missing that you would expect to see?
Is the distribution of journals and publications cited, and the age of the citations, appropriate?
Do the references demonstrate that the author is aware of current and key research in their field?