ICES will run two times a year at the University of Aizu with January & May Editions
The ETLTC Conference Series upholds the highest academic and ethical standards in the review and selection of research papers. All submitted papers undergo a rigorous, multi-phase peer review process to ensure quality, originality, relevance, and scholarly contribution. The process is structured as follows:
1. Initial Screening Phase
Each submitted manuscript is first subjected to an internal screening by the Conference Editorial Board to determine:
Scope and Thematic Fit: The paper must align with the themes and focus areas of the ETLTC conference in question.
Completeness of Submission: The submission must include all required elements (title, abstract, keywords, references, figures/tables, etc.).
Language and Clarity: The manuscript should be written in clear, academic English. Submissions with significant grammatical or structural issues may be returned without review.
Formatting and Ethical Compliance: The paper must follow the conference formatting guidelines and show no signs of plagiarism or unethical research practices.
Only submissions that pass this stage proceed to the double-blind peer review.
2. Double-Blind Peer Review Phase
All papers that pass the initial screening are subjected to a double-blind peer review process:
Reviewer Assignment: Each paper is assigned to two independent expert reviewers based on subject expertise.
Confidentiality: Authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other to ensure objectivity.
Evaluation Criteria:
Originality and novelty of the research
Soundness of methodology and analysis
Clarity of problem statement and research objectives
Relevance and significance of findings
Coherence, logical flow, and academic writing quality
Adequacy of references and literature grounding
Contribution to the field and practical/theoretical implications
Reviewers provide detailed feedback and recommendations, which may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
3. Revision and Re-Evaluation
Authors are required to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the reviewers’ comments and submit a camera-ready version along with a response/rebuttal document that outlines how each reviewer's comment was addressed.
4. Final Compliance Check
The revised manuscripts are then re-examined by the editorial committee or designated senior reviewers to verify:
Adherence to Reviewer Recommendations
Final Formatting and Style Compliance
Improved Language and Clarity
Completeness of Author Declarations, Permissions, and Metadata
Only papers that pass this compliance check are considered for final acceptance and submission to the conference publisher (e.g., Scopus-indexed proceedings).
5. Acceptance / Rejection of the Camera Version
Although an article may be initially accepted for conference participation, the camera-ready version is still subject to a final editorial review before being approved for publication in the Scopus-indexed proceedings. Each year, some camera-ready submissions are not accepted for publication due to one or more of the following reasons:
Insufficient content quality: The final manuscript may lack depth, rigor, clarity, or sufficient evidence to support its claims.
Misalignment with the conference scope: The revised submission may not clearly address themes relevant to the conference or may diverge significantly from the content originally reviewed.
Organizational and structural weaknesses: The paper may be difficult to follow due to unclear structure, inconsistent flow, or missing essential sections.
Formatting and layout non-compliance: Failure to adhere to the required template, reference style, page limits, or other formatting guidelines.
Unprofessional academic writing: Issues such as poor language quality, inappropriate tone, weak terminology usage, or improper citation practices.
Major deviations from the reviewed version: The camera-ready manuscript may contain substantial changes that were not part of the peer review (e.g., new data, removed sections, or altered conclusions).
Ethical or originality concerns: Problems such as high similarity index, unclear attribution, or possible plagiarism.
Important Note:
When the initial submission is a short abstract, it is relatively easier for it to be accepted for conference presentation because only the core idea and thematic relevance are evaluated at that stage. However, the camera-ready version is reviewed as a full scholarly paper. Since the editorial committee did not have the opportunity to review a complete draft during the initial stage, there is no direct basis for comparing the abstract to the final manuscript. Therefore, if the full paper does not adequately develop the research idea with appropriate methodology, evidence, structure, and academic writing quality, the final manuscript may be rejected from publication even though the abstract was accepted for presentation.
Additionally, at the camera-ready submission stage, authors are required to provide a statement explaining how the final paper was prepared, indicating whether and how reviewer comments were addressed. If this statement is missing, incomplete, or lacks sufficient detail to demonstrate thoughtful revision and scholarly improvement, this may also serve as grounds for non-acceptance of the camera-ready version in the final proceedings.
Integrity and Quality Assurance
ETLTC maintains a strict quality assurance protocol at all stages of the peer review process. The integrity of the review process is further supported by the use of plagiarism detection tools, strict adherence to ethical guidelines, and continuous training and evaluation of the reviewer panel.
This structured and transparent review process ensures that the ETLTC Conference Series maintains high academic standards while providing meaningful feedback and development opportunities for researchers at all stages of their careers.
© ETLTC & ACM Chapter on eLearning & Technical Communication: All Rights Reserved.