Submission Guidelines & Ethics

Procedures, Review Process, and Ethical Standards

Author Submission Guidelines

1. Submission Process

Authors will submit their original, unpublished research papers via the submission management platform (e.g., EasyChair, Microsoft CMT).

Each submission must strictly follow the prescribed format and adhere to ethical guidelines, including proper citation and originality (plagiarism check will be conducted using Turnitin/iThenticate).

The maximum allowed length is typically 8–10 pages, as per the publisher’s guidelines.

2. Initial Screening

The Conference Editors and Track Chairs will conduct an initial desk review to:

  • Ensure relevance to the conference themes and tracks.
  • Verify compliance with formatting and submission guidelines.
  • Check for language clarity and plagiarism.
  • Submissions that do not meet basic requirements or are out of scope will be desk-rejected.

Peer Review Process

Submitted papers undergo double-blind review by at least two Programme Committee experts or appointed reviewers in AI, smart grids, medical electronics, or communications.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

Each manuscript passing the initial screening will be subjected to a double-blind peer review process, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous.

Each paper will be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, selected based on their expertise in the relevant field.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers will evaluate submissions based on:

  • Originality and Novelty
  • Technical Soundness
  • Significance of Research Findings
  • Methodological Rigor
  • Relevance to Conference Themes
  • Quality of Analysis and Results
  • Clarity of Presentation and Organization
  • Proper Citations and References

5. Reviewer Assignment and Management

Reviewers will be drawn from a pool of international program committee members, industry experts, and external academic reviewers.

Each reviewer will typically be assigned 3–4 papers.

Track Chairs will monitor reviewer performance and ensure timely and constructive feedback.

6. Decision Making

Based on the reviewers’ scores and comments, one of the following editorial decisions will be made:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Major revisions required (resubmission required for final review)
  • Reject

Papers requiring revision will be returned to the authors with consolidated feedback. Authors must resubmit within a specified deadline.

7. Final Review & Camera-Ready Submission

Revised papers will be reviewed again (where necessary) to ensure all comments have been adequately addressed.

Accepted papers will be proof-checked and formatted into the conference proceedings template for final camera-ready submission.

8. Quality Control

Final manuscripts will undergo language editing, formatting checks, and another plagiarism scan before inclusion in the proceedings.

The editorial team will compile all accepted papers, prepare the front matter, and submit the complete volume to the publisher.

9. Documentation

All reviews, decisions, and correspondence will be archived for transparency and audit purposes.

Copies of selected review reports may be provided to the publisher upon request.

Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement

ACMESGA 2k26 is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against any publication malpractice. We adhere to the Code of Conduct and Best-Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors (COPE) and the **CRC Press (Taylor & Francis) Code of Ethics**.

Duties of Authors

  • Originality and Plagiarism: Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others, this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
  • Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication.
  • Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study.

Duties of Editors

  • Publication Decisions: The editor is responsible for deciding which of the papers submitted to the conference should be published.
  • Fair Play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
  • Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Duties of Reviewers

  • Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
  • Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.
  • Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.