[fusion_text]Author Guidelines

 

  • The paper shall contain an Abstract of no more than 200 words, Keywords, Reference List, and short Bio of the author(s).
  • Length: the paper shall be between 3000 – 3500 words (excluding Abstract, Reference List, and Bio).
  • Font, Space and Margin: Times New Roman size 12, space 1.5, margin 1 inch on all sides.
  • Title & Subtitle: the title and subtitle (if any) shall be printed at the top of the page in bold, and only the full words begin with capital letters.
  • The paper shall contain the full name(s) of the author(s) without any title or degree; name of department and institutional affiliation; email address(es) of the author(s)—all of these come right below the paper’s title and above the Abstract.
  • Page numbering: bottom centre of every printed page (without any header or footer).
  • Format: only paper in document format (doc) is accepted, so do not submit a PDF paper.
  • The paper shall not contain footnotes or endnotes; all references shall be embedded in paragraphs, using the Harvard system (author-date system).
  • Reference List: please refer to the current edition of the APA (American Psychological Association) Style (Visit the following link for information: http://web.calstatela.edu/library/guides/3apa.pdf).
  • Author’s Bionote: shall not be more than 100 words at the bottom of the last page of the paper.

Review Guidelines

  • Because qualified paper review is essential, all reviewers have a responsibility to do their fair share of reviews.If a reviewer feels inadequately qualified or lacks the time to fairly judge the paper submitted, the reviewer shall return the paper promptly to the chairperson of the conference’ scientific committee.
  • A reviewer shall objectively judge the quality of a paper on its own merit and shall respect the intellectual independence of the author(s).
  • The main criteria for paper review are :originality; clarity; profundity; and relevance to the conference’ theme and subthemes.
  • A reviewer shall avoid conflicts of interest and/or the appearance thereof. If a paper submitted for review presents a potential conflict of interest or the reviewer has a personal bias, the reviewer shall return the paper promptly without review, and advise the chairperson of the conference’ scientific committee.
  • A reviewer should not evaluate a paper authored or co-authored by a person with whom the reviewer has a personal or professional connection if the relationship would bias judgment of the paper.
  • A reviewer should treat a paper sent for review as a confidential document.
  • Reviewers shall explain and support their judgments adequately and fairly. Negative judgments, in particular, should receive a clear, complete, and cogent explanation from the reviewer.
  • A reviewer shall call any substantial similarity between the paper under consideration and any published work or any work submitted concurrently to another conference/publication to the attention of the conference’ scientific committee.
  • Unpublished information, arguments, or interpretations contained in a submitted paper are confidential and shall not be used in the research of a reviewer or otherwise disseminated except with the consent of the author and with appropriate acknowledgement.
  • If a reviewer has convincing evidence that a paper contains plagiarized material or falsified data, or evidence of simultaneous submission, the reviewer shall notify the conference’ scientific committee, who will determine the final disposition of the matter.

[/fusion_text]