Submission Methods & Requirements

Papers for publication must be submitted in full paper electronically via https://jinshuju.net/f/YTFKkM. All edition and update must be done up until the submission deadline.

Length and Format

The authors are suggested to use the Formatting Template to meet formatting requirements.
Your paper must comply with the following specifications:
Paper Length : Each paper should be within 4-8 pages, each registration covers 5 pages, for extra pages, fee will be charged.
Official language is English in paper writing and presenting.

Originality

Submissions to ICEPCC 2025 should report on significant, original, and previously unpublished results on any aspect of design of complex systems or artifacts. All submissions will be subjected to double-blind peer reviews, who are expert or have been experiencing in the related field for years. The accepted papers must be revised, taking into consideration the referees' comments and suggestions, before inclusion in the conference proceedings.

At least one of the authors listed on the accepted paper must pay the registration and make a presentation on-site.

Editorial Policy

Papers submitted to the conference should report your original work, unpublished before. They could be either experimental or theoretical and must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. We firmly believe that ethical conduct is the most essential virtue of any academics. Any act of plagiarism or self-plagiarism is unacceptable and academic misconduct will not be tolerated. If an author is found to commit an act of plagiarism, we will reject the article submitted or delete the article from the final publications.

Fabrication of data is an egregious departure from the expected norms of scientific conduct, as is the selective reporting of data with the intent to mislead or deceive, as well as the theft of data or research results from others.

Reviewing Process

By submitting a paper to ICEPCC 2025, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts will be reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the conference committee, who will give detailed comments, and if the submission gets acceptance, the authors submit a revised version that takes into account this feedback. All papers are reviewed using a double-blind review process. The Committees of ICEPCC 2025 invest great efforts in reviewing the papers submitted to the conference and organizing the sessions to enable the participants to gain maximum benefit.

Peer Review Process Overview

The proceeding adheres to a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:

Manuscript Allocation: Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to 2–3 independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.
Initial Screening (1 week): Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.
In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:
- A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)
- Constructive comments for improvement
- A confidential recommendation to the Editor
Decision-Making & Conflict Resolution: The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of [40%], which balances selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.
Author Notification: Authors receive a decision within 1-week post-review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision (2-month revision window).
Revisions & Appeals: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within 2 weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.

Reviewer's Criteria

Reviewers are typically asked to evaluate papers based on several criteria:

Originality and Innovation: Is the paper presenting new ideas, methodologies, or findings? Does it contribute to the advancement of the field?
Technical Soundness: Are the methods used sound and appropriate? Is the analysis rigorous? Are the results well-supported by the data?
Relevance to the Conference: Does the paper fit within the scope of the conference themes and tracks?
Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well-organized, with clear arguments and structure? Are the ideas presented in a coherent and understandable way?
Literature Review and References: Does the paper appropriately engage with existing literature? Is there a clear understanding of the state of the field?
Ethical Considerations: Does the research adhere to ethical standards, especially in areas like data privacy, human subjects, etc.?
Practical Implications: For applied research, reviewers will also assess the potential practical impact or applications of the findings.
Each of these criteria is typically scored on a numerical scale (e.g., 1-5), and reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement.

Ethics & Transparency

COPE Compliance: All participants follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines.
Gender/Geographic Inclusion: Reviewers evaluate whether gender, race, or geographic factors are appropriately addressed.
Diversity Auditors: 2 committee members monitor demographic balance in accepted papers quarterly.
AI Usage: AI tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, statistical error flags) assist but never replace human judgment.