Editorial Process

The submitted papers will go through the editorial process consisting of two stages. The first stage is Preliminary Review conducted by the editor(s) assumed by Program Chairs and Program Co-Chairs of the conference. Preliminary Review is set to check the fundamental elements of the manuscript such as length, topic, clarity and accuracy of English, quality of tables and images, originality, competing interest and etc. At the initial stage, the editor has a quick look at the manuscripts to filter out those with major flaws (e.g., plagiarism or irrelevance to the conference). A manuscript passing on to next stage will be assigned to reviewers for peer review. More than two experts who have sound publication record of the matched research interest will review the manuscript carefully.

Timeliness

A submission confirmation email will be sent to authors in 1-3 days at the date of submission. If you do not receive this email, please check your spam folder or contact us.

The Preliminary Review feedback will be sent in 1-3 working days.

The review process could take 2-4 weeks. 

Peer Review Policy

ICoGB undertakes a double-blind peer-review and keeps confidential of the identities and contact details of both authors and reviewers. Reviewers are not aware of the identities of authors, and authors do not know identities of the reviewers assigned to their submission. Authors are required to disclose their affiliation and contact information, funding resources and acknowledgements on the Title Page which is not shared with reviewers at review process.

Peer Review Process

Joint efforts of authors, reviewers and editors to ensure the quality and the integrity of published research that supports and embodies the scientific method are highly appreciated.

All the submissions are subject to a high-standard and unbiased peer review, which is a significant element in the maintenance of academic integrity and of extreme importance for a reputable conference.

The editor has the authority to decide if the manuscript (including revised manuscript) is acceptable or not. The decision is made on the basis of comments from the assigned reviewers and revisions of the authors. These comments are required to be structured in a review report that precisely describes reviewers’ perspectives and feasible suggestions. If the comments of one reviewer contradicts another, the editor retains the right to invite a third reviewer from the Technical Committee or external reviewer for more opinion.

Authors may be requested to revise their manuscripts based on the suggestions of editors or reviewers. If the author refuses to do the revision without acceptable reasons, the submitted paper will be rejected.

Preliminary Review

Full-text manuscripts will be directed to the editor who has a quick check on the submitted manuscripts on their relevance to conference theme, layout, structure, length, language, originality, references and quality of display items. All references included in the Reference are cited in the content in the accurate order.

The decision on whether to approve this manuscript for peer review rests with the first impression on it. Manuscripts failing to pass the Preliminary Review are recommended to seek publication elsewhere.

Passing the Preliminary Review, the abstract will be sent to two reviewers of the matched subject area. At this stage, the reviewers have rights to refuse reviewing the manuscript for any reason that prevents them from fulfilling the review. An alternative reviewer will subsequently be appointed by the editor to complete the review process.

Evaluations

ICoGB has strengthened the criteria enforced during the review process. A number of aspects are taken into consideration when editor and reviewers are performing the review. The editorial decision is made mostly depend on the evaluation of the following aspects:

  • Originality & Novelty

Authors should certify that the work in their submissions are entirely original. Plagiarisms or inappropriate use of the work of others or themselves will lead to immediate rejection. Features of the work presented in the paper should be of sufficient novelty in the focused research area.

  • Rigor & Significance

The study is designed appropriately for the research question. The approach of the research should be valid and reproducible with appropriate use of data and treatment of uncertainties.

  • Quality of Presentation

Clear and adequate presentation of study is required for submitted manuscripts. The presentation should be completed with reference cited accurately.

  • English Level

Authors are required to write the paper draft in English to reader-friendly and understandable standards.

Decision

The Editorial Decision is made by editor(s) assumed by Program Chair / Co-Chair of the conference. After weeks of waiting, authors receive comments with one of the four decisions from the conference Editorial Office.

  • Accept in Present Form

The paper is considered to be of sufficient quality to warrant publication and accepted without any further changes.

  • Accept after Minor Revisions

The paper is in principle accepted after some minor revisions from authors based on the reviewer’s comments. In this case, the paper will only be reviewed by the Editor without sending back to original reviewers unless the Editor deems it necessary to do so.

  • Reconsider after Major Revisions

The authors are given limited period of time to revise the paper based on the feedback review comments. Revised paper will be sent back to the original reviewers for further comments unless they opt out. The Editor has the authority to decide whether the revised paper is acceptable even it has not been sent to second round of peer review.

  • Reject

The paper is rejected due to serious flaws. In this case, the paper will not be recommended to resubmit to this conference.

Revised Manuscript

Authors have the responsibility to revise the manuscript based on the feedback review suggestions within fixed time period. It’s really helpful to simplify the subsequent rounds of review if the authors highlight the changes made that in light with the previous response suggestions.

Manuscript with minor changes is usually assessed directly by the editor without sending back to the original reviewers.

Manuscript with significant revisions is revalued by the original reviewers unless the original reviewer opts out. The editor has the right to reevaluate the revised manuscript or reach out fresh reviewers for the evaluation.
https://www.icogb.org/ep
www.icogb.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2021-49
24659
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:UPY6CDHRWD527VJ3YPKM3S3IEKJUOGYF
<urn:uuid:dd829e7f-3535-4867-b98a-33a304518ffa>
2021-12-03T21:52:53Z
47.56.103.140
text/html
sha1:E27IBISJKOZBP4O4IXXGQEKLL6EINDTL
<urn:uuid:44ce60b9-643a-42b6-8828-2bb5926e13a6>
https://www.icogb.org/ep
response
<urn:uuid:7f9f63a1-c5fc-43a0-91ba-0f92df7b51b0>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-12
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/