Blossom Water Museum Hotel, Hangzhou City, China
China University of Geosciences
LINCOLN UNIVERSITY, USA
University of Kansas,USA
University of Missouri, USA
Submitted papers will be reviewed by 2-3 expert, accepted papers will be collected in CCIE Conference Proceeding, and submitted to Ei, Scopus, CPCI, et al, databases for indexation.
Any accepted paper included in the final program is expected to have at least one author to attend this conference and present your paper . If not, CCIE will decline to publish this paper even it's been accepted. Conference organizers will collect attendance records and a list of any non-presented papers and submit to publisher.
Exceptions to this policy will be made by the Technical Program Chair(s) of the conference only if there is evidence that the no-show occurred because of unanticipated events beyond the control of the authors, and every option available to the authors to present the paper was exhausted.
Each manuscript is reviewed by one or more members of the Program Committee. On occasion, outside expert Reviewers may be consulted. Publication of a submitted manuscript is contingent on approval by the Reviewer. Editors, Editorial Committee Members, and Reviews staff treat submitted manuscripts and all communication with authors as confidential. Authors and Reviewers must also treat communication as confidential.
Reviewers are asked to consider the following for every article published in CCIE conference proceeding: Whether the article will be of value to a broad audience. The goal is to make all articles useful to specialists, scholars from other areas, and teachers and students. Reviewers are asked to make specific suggestions as to how the article can achieve this goal if revision is necessary. Whether the citations broad and representative of the published primary literature. Whether the abstract represents the whole article and is informative. Whether the article well organized and easy to read. Whether the illustrations and tables are effective.
Reviewers make a recommendation to: Accept the article and publish with minor to moderate revisions; Request significant revision followed by another review; Reject the article; Reviewers can indicate whether the author may resubmit or not.
EVERY SINGLE paper that is submitted to CCIE undergoes thorough review. During paper submission, the author is asked to select topics related to the paper. Those topics are then automatically matched in our list in order for the most relevant reviewers to be selected.
Hereon, CCIE reiterates that the conference firmly resists the plagiarism, self-plagiarism. Any act of plagiarism is unacceptable, which are considered as a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences. Before submission, you are suggested to make a cross check to ensure that your manuscript similarity is under 20% (better less than 15%). Meanwhile, please make sure that the similar contents are properly reused basing on your checking report. Plagiarism is commonly defined as “the use of others prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source”.
All regular papers will go through two parts of reviews, including preliminary review and double-blind peer review.
The papers will be checked in terms of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, paper length, structure, research topics and language etc. The paper can be sent to double-blind peer review only if the paper passed the preliminary review. Generally speaking, the preliminary review feedback is available in 3 working days.
The authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments and other related personal information will be deleted or covered before the papers are sent to double-blind peer review.
The papers will be reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more to review the papers’ relevance, originality, technical quality, significance and presentation.
Each reviewer will be assigned to not exceed 4 papers and given 2-4 weeks for one paper reviewing.
The reviewer should account for their reviewing decision by providing the sufficient, substantial and well-founded comments that may help the authors to optimize the paper. In addition, the reviewer is also probably asked to answer a series of questions by program committee.
After receiving the review comments, the authors are entitled to the rebuttal and its’ feedback. But the final review decision will not be changed in virtue of that.
Afterwards, the author is notified that their paper has been reviewed, receiving an email that includes the grades and the comments. They can then make appropriate revisions in order to replace their paper with the revised version. The paper is then reexamined by the Editor-in-Chief or the local organizing committee, and undergoes secondary review based on the modifications.
The paper publishing activity is very serious indeed: careers and reputations, as well as academic tenure decisions, often hinges on these publications. It means that we must be serious in the review processes. The paper reviewer is playing a critical role in the review process and fulfilling an important obligation of a committee member, the care and thoroughness are the foundations for the quality of a good review provided with fairness in judgment, expertise in the field, and carefully crafted comments that help authors improve their papers and work. We totally can’t accept the sketchy comments which apparently seems that the paper didn't be read carefully. Of course, the reviewers are allowed to refuse the review requests because of busyness or beyond research scopes.
The paper review process has two separate and equally important goals. The first is to provide guidance to the authors, and the second is to provide editor and conference organizer with decisions of presentation type and publication. After carefully reading, the reviewers are expected to provide the authors with a clear, detailed, diplomatic, unbiased evaluation and even appropriate citations ( if authors are unaware of relevant work) but to avoid vague complaints.
Reviewers often begin with an overall assessment of the paper and further specify the strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the reviewers are expected to be acquainted with the conference topics and scopes, from this, reviewers take consider the originality, technical quality, research significance and pertinence. So the sufficient, substantial and well-founded comments are must for the for decision of the 'Acceptance' or 'Rejection' not only scores.
The contents, ideas of the papers cannot be used, referenced, or included in the works of the yours, your colleagues and your students prior to publication. Until then, the information in the papers should be treated as confidentiality and must not be used for any potential purposes uncorrelated to the review process. Reviewers should never share the reviewed version of the paper, review findings, reviewer comments on papers, and deliberations on the review decisions with anyone other than the review committee and the conference staff.
A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If the conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review the paper. The specific conflicts may be related to following situations:
The assignments are trying to avoid most conflicts, but If you recognize that your reviewing will be related to the conflicts of rights, please turn down the paper and write back the refusing mail for the request.