Paper Review Process

• We will not accept plagiarized papers in IEMECON-2021.
• The IEMECON team will be checking the plagiarism level of all the submitted papers for ensuring the originality of content using a professional plagiarism checking tool. We will be using docoloc as plagiarism checking software and thus any paper having a similarity score above 20% will not be processed further.
• The conference aims at carrying out two rounds of the review process. In the first round, the papers submitted by the authors will be assessed based on their technical suitability, the scope of work and plagiarism. The corresponding authors of qualifying submissions will be intimated for their papers to be double-blind reviewed by three experts based on originality, novelty, clarity, completeness, relevance, significance and research contribution. The final decision regarding the acceptance of papers will be based upon the review remarks received after the second round of the review process.

Detailed Review Process is given below:- 

With a strong emphasis on quality, for maintaining and enhancing the significance and reputation of the conference to its participants and wider community, our review process can be summarized as follows:

1. Authors are advised to submit their original and unpublished work (related to the theme of conference). They clearly need to identify the problem, their contribution(s), and justification with respect to the state-of-the-art work.
2. Maximum number of paper length must not exceed 6 pages.
3. Authors should take a note that it is a double-blind submission. Authors should not disclose their names, affiliations, funding sources, and previous works that help find them via web search engines.
4. The program committee review only those papers that develop, argue, and provide results through double-blind reviewing policy.
5. In the very beginning, if authors do not follow double-blind submission policy, chairs will make a desk rejection.
6. PC chairs will then allow technical PC members to choose the research topics they are willing to review. Based on this and their expertise, PC chairs will assign papers for a review. PC chairs will do it manually.
7. Technical PC members can identify competent reviewers outside the Technical Committee board and can hand over some papers if the papers are not within their field of expertise, and the whole process is available in Easychair (i.e., taking help from sub reviewers).
8. Technical PC members are, however, still responsible for the quality and timeliness of the reviews allocated originally to them. Accordingly, the paper/review management system supports the allocation of reviews, at the initiation of PC members.
9. For evaluating the papers, the EasyChair scores mechanism will be followed:

Strong accept (3), Accept (2) and Weak accept (1)

Borderline (0)

Strong reject (-3), Reject (-2) and Weak reject (-1)

10. In all cases, PC chairs will work closely. Based on the review reports and the scores, PC chairs send notification to the authors via along with the review reports/scores.
11. Notification is based on an average score provided by the assigned reviewers.
12. Note that notification, in the first review, will be straight: accept and reject.
13. The papers with an average score less than 0 will be rejected.
14. For accepted papers, TPC chairs will provide a month for an additional revision, if any. This will mostly useful for those authors who have received major comments.
15. After having revised versions, we will have exactly same set of experts for review, and will add one more in case there exists contradictory review reports/scores. An example of contradictory review means giving +3 (strong accept) and -3 (strong reject) scores from two different for the same paper. At this point, PC chairs will help invite an additional reviewer.
16. After having all review reports/scores, PC chairs will make a final decision.