Review process
How submissions to ICGICSF 2026 are screened, peer reviewed, and assessed for publication.
Double-blind peer review
All submissions undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure high academic standards and relevance to the conference themes. Each submission is first screened by the Technical Committee for its relevance to the scope of the conference, compliance with submission guidelines, adherence to the anonymity requirement, and suitability for review. Submissions that pass this preliminary screening are forwarded to members of the Scientific Review Committee for double-blind peer review.
The Scientific Review Committee members assess submissions based on originality, contribution to the existing literature and theory, methodological rigor, practical application, and relevance to the conference. The review process ensures that submissions meet high-quality academic standards. Based on the reviewer reports and editorial assessment, a submission may be accepted for presentation, accepted subject to revision, or rejected.
Acceptance for presentation does not guarantee inclusion in the Atlantis Press proceedings volume. Following the conference, selected high-quality papers go through a post-conference editorial review to evaluate their suitability for inclusion in the proceedings volume. Final selection for publication in the Atlantis Press proceedings is made by the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editors on the basis of academic quality, relevance to the conference theme, successful revisions where required, and compliance with Springer's editorial and publication requirements.
Submissions are assessed on
- Originality of the work
- Contribution to existing literature and theory
- Methodological rigor
- Practical application
- Relevance to the conference theme
Ethical review
Submissions to ICGICSF 2026 undergo an ethical review to ensure compliance with the principles of academic integrity, including originality, proper attribution, and transparency. At the time of submission, authors are required to acknowledge that their work is original, properly acknowledges prior scholarship, complies with institutional ethical standards, includes the required ethical approval for research involving human participants, discloses any significant conflicts of interest, and does not contain knowingly false, fabricated, or misleading statements, data, or findings.
Submissions flagged by the Technical Committee for potential ethical concerns — such as plagiarism, absence of ethical approval, misleading claims, undisclosed conflict of interest, or inappropriate content — are referred to a three-member Ethical Review Committee (ERC) for further evaluation. The ERC may seek clarification from the authors or request supporting documents. The conference reserves the right to reject, withdraw, or exclude any submission that does not meet its ethical standards or the publication requirements of the proceedings.