Policies & Ethics

The Proceedings of 2ndICASVI  is a peer-reviewed proceeding in the fields of Applied Physics, Computer Science, Electronics and Devices. We only accept and publish article manuscripts in the fields appropriate for the proceeding. The committee is responsible for the peer-review publication process as a pivotal building block in the development of the respected network of academia, and we will assist in facilitating the publication process to ICASVI bound publishers.

 

The following statements clarify ethical behavior to be agreed upon for all parties involved in the act of publishing an article in our proceeding: the authors, the editors, and the peer-reviewers. These statements were adapted from Committee of Publication Ethics (COPE)

Author Responsibilities

1.      Author(s) must submit the manuscript accurately and objectively. The findings being used in the manuscript should be based on honest work, and must not use any fabricated, falsification, and/or inappropriate data manipulation. Author(s) also responsible for not providing falsified and inaccurate sentences, information, or statements.

2.      Author(s) is obliged cite previous research, research-findings, concept/theory of references used in the preparation of their manuscript, and author(s) is obliged to provide proper acknowledgement of the works of others used in a research.

3.      Author(s) must certify that their manuscript is their original work. The manuscript also has not currently been considered for publication, journal or proceeding, elsewhere, and the author(s) must certify that their manuscript is free of plagiarism in any form.

4.      Author(s) must certify that their manuscript has not been published elsewhere. The author(s) were also prohibited from writing the manuscript using any data submitted in any other publications. If certain sections of the manuscript used a previously published study as part of their manuscript, the author(s) is required to clearly cite the previous paper and indicate how their submitted manuscript offers novel contributions beyond those of the previous work.

5.      Author(s) must provide proper acknowledgment of the works of others used in their research, and the author(s) of the manuscript should give comprehensive credit where it is deemed required by author(s) for supporting their research. The manuscript also must have mentioned if the author has received any funding or grants by any institutions, and the name of the institutions also must be disclosed in the acknowledgement.

6.      All names of the authorship listed in the manuscripts must have a significant contribution to the research or the preparation of the manuscript. All listed author(s) must also have an agreement regarding the final manuscript submitted for the conference.

7.      Author(s) must notify the committee about any potential financial or any conflict of interest that is substantially similar to the manuscript under review.

8.      Author(s) must promptly notify the committee if a significant error or inaccuracy in their manuscript is identified, and cooperate with the committee to be further evaluated.

Reviewer Responsibilities

1.      Reviewers must treat all information regarding manuscripts as strictly confidential and treat them as privileged information.  Any identity or information related to the manuscript is not to be shown or discussed with others, unless permitted by the editor(s).

2.      Reviewers must have an important contribution to improve the quality of the manuscript being reviewed. Reviewer must express their feedback objectively, clearly, and easy to be understood.

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

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

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?

Presentation Criteria

• Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
• Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? 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 removed
• Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful? 

Review Process

• All papers that comply with the submission guidelines will be peer-reviewed and assessed based on originality, technical and/or research content/depth, topic of interests, conference relevance, contributions, and readability. Acceptance of articles will be informed to authors via email. The authors of accepted articles will be able to make changes based on the reviewer’s suggestions and submit final camera-ready manuscripts by the required deadline.
• Each manuscript submitted will be independently reviewed by at least three (3) reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area in a double-blind peer-review process.
• Submitted manuscript will be evaluated based on full paper, including Abstract, Introduction, Methodology, Result, Discussion, Conclusion, as well as appropriate references.
• The decision for acceptance, amendment, or rejection is based upon the reviewer’s comments/recommendations and made by the Editor.
• Authors are suggested to address all reviewers’ reports and improve in the revised paper.
• Manuscripts sent back to the authors for revision should be returned to the Conference’s submission system not more than two weeks from the email notification.