Peer reviewing is vital to ensure the scientific quality of conference papers. Therefore, papers submitted to 2ICML are subject to transparent, unprejudiced and efficient peer-review, which dedicated editors carry out (assumed by Program Chair, Program Co-Chair and committee members appointed by Conference Chair) and reviewers.
The editorial process of a paper consists of two parts: Initial Check and Peer Review. Note that only the full paper will be assigned for peer review. In addition, the editor assesses abstracts submitted to 2ICML to decide whether accept them for the conference presentation.
The paper will be sent to an editor for an initial check. Once passing the initial check, it will be assigned to reviewers of the relevant research areas for peer review. A minimum of three reviewers will carefully review the manuscript and report their recommendations to the editor. After the authors’ revisions (if requested by the editor), the editor will make the ultimate acceptance or rejection decision for the paper.
During the editorial process, the conference support team takes the responsibility of coordination between the publisher and authors, copyediting work, and other necessary publication support
Statements of Originality
The conference firmly resists plagiarism, self-plagiarism and other unethical behaviors. Any plagiarism act is unacceptable, considered a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences. Before submission, prospective authors are suggested to make a cross check to ensure that the manuscript's similarity is under 20% (better than 15%). Meanwhile, please ensure that similar contents are properly reused based on the checking report. Plagiarism is “the use of others’ prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source”.
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 Initial Check. Generally speaking, the initial check feedback is available within 3 working days.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments and other related personal information will be separated from main content before the manuscript is sent for double-blind peer review.
At least three reviewers will review each paper, but usually by three or more to review “Novelty and Originality, Scientific Soundness, Importance and Impact on the Research Area, Relevance to the Conference and Completeness of Presentation”.
Each reviewer will be assigned not to exceed 5 papers and given 2-3 weeks for one paper reviewing.
The reviewer is accountable for their reviewing recommendation by providing 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 editors relevant to the review. Finally, the authors are entitled to a rebuttal and feedback after receiving the review comments.
Papers accepted to the conference will be involved in the proceedings and published with a collaborative publisher. Although publishable criteria may have slight differences among publishers, widely-accepted sets of criteria have been enforced in 2ICML for paper selection and publication to ensure high-quality publication.
The manuscripts submitted to the conference should be written in English, which is required to be inclusive, appropriate and understandable for editors, reviewers and future readers. Please use proper grammar and fluent sentences, choose good words, and avoid syntax errors in your paper. Authors should be aware that comprehension difficulties may lead to the rejection of the paper.
Papers presenting the authors' study should be within the scope of the conference. Please look through the Call for Paper first to check topics of interest of this conference before submitting your paper. Please send us a query email if you doubt whether your paper suits this conference.
With the publication of conference proceedings, your work will be presented to the scientific communities as well. Therefore, authors should guarantee the objectivity, reliability, validity, and replication of results, and the presented research in the paper should be worth reading, publishing, and sharing from the perspective of editors and reviewers.
Authors are accountable for conducting the research with scientific rigor and implementing the highest standards in their research, from subject selection to data analysis. Sufficient details need to be provided to allow reviewers evaluate their work and other experts to replicate the research.
Data, analyses and results of the study should be presented appropriately. A high-quality presentation makes your reach easier to understand and removes obstacles in the peer-review process.
Submitted papers should be well formatted. The conference provides templates to help authors typeset their manuscripts before submission.
Decision and revision
Authors will get notified of these four possible feedbacks after the peer-review process:
The paper is accepted and does not need any modification.
Accept with minor revisions
The paper will be accepted after minor revisions. In this case, the reviewed paper will only be reviewed by the editor.
Revaluate with major revisions
The paper will be sent to be reviewed by the original reviewers (unless they opt-out) or assessed by the editor.
The paper will not be accepted due to major deficiencies. And it is not recommended to be resubmitted.
Note: Authors are entitled to lodge rebuttal or raise questions about the editorial comments.