Peer Review Process

All submitted full papers will undergo peer review. Acceptance will be granted if the reviewers’ recommendations are positive. The criteria for acceptance are based on technical content, clarity, and compliance with the CTRESS 7.0 paper template.

The peer review process consists of three stages:

1. Initial Review of Abstract

• During the initial review, abstracts will be evaluated based on several criteria, including relevance to conference themes, originality, clarity of objectives, methodological soundness, results and discussion, structure and coherence, language quality, and compliance with the abstract word limit.
• The editorial team evaluates each abstract to ensure its topic and content are appropriate for the conference theme.
• Abstracts that do not meet the minimum criteria or are not aligned with the theme will be returned to authors.
• Authors may revise and resubmit or consider submitting to a more suitable venue.

2. Peer Review of Full Manuscript

• Authors of accepted abstracts must submit a full manuscript within three (3) weeks.
• All submitted full manuscripts must be professionally proofread to ensure clarity, grammatical accuracy, and proper academic tone. Manuscripts with significant language issues may be rejected regardless of technical content. Authors are strongly encouraged to seek English language editing support prior to submission.
• Each manuscript will be reviewed by two blind peer reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
• Reviewers are asked to submit their evaluations within two (2) weeks, based on the following criteria:
• Scope: Relevance to the conference domain
• Originality: Novelty and significance of findings
• Technical Accuracy: Assessment of the soundness of the methodology, the depth and logic of the discussion, and the validity of the conclusions.
• Clarity and Organization: Logical structure and readability
• Title and Abstract: Accuracy and clarity
• Illustrations: Quality and relevance of figures and tables
• Bibliography: Completeness and relevance of references
• Language Quality: Clear, professional academic English

3. Acceptance Decision

- The editorial committee will make a final decision based on the reviewers’ comments. Possible outcomes include:

• Accept Submission
• Revisions Required
• Decline Submission
• Authors required to revise their manuscripts must address all reviewer comments before final acceptance.
• In cases of disagreement between reviewers, an independent expert may serve as an adjudicator.
• Reviewers are expected to provide unbiased, constructive feedback and treat all submissions confidentially.

Note: The CTRESS 7.0 editorial committee retains full authority to accept or reject any submission based on quality, relevance, and compliance with conference standards.

Plagiarism Policy

• All manuscripts must undergo plagiarism detection screening.
• The maximum acceptable similarity index is 20%.
• Plagiarism, including self-plagiarism or uncredited reuse of material, will result in immediate rejection and possible reporting to the author’s institution.

Authorship and Contributions

• All listed authors must have made a substantial intellectual contribution to the work. This includes contributions to the conception or design of the study, data collection, analysis, interpretation, or drafting of the manuscript.
• To ensure ethical authorship practices and avoid serial publication behavior, each author is limited to a maximum of two (2) articles in this publication, regardless of their position in the authorship list (first author, corresponding author, or co-author).
• Authors appearing in more than two accepted submissions will be removed from additional manuscripts by the editorial team. The editors also reserve the right to reject submissions that exceed this limit.

Originality and Redundant Publication

• Manuscripts must be original and not under consideration by another conference, journal, or publisher.
• Submitting the same manuscript to multiple venues simultaneously is considered unethical.

Conflict of Interest

• Authors and reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest—financial or personal—that could influence objectivity.
• Reviewers must decline assignments where conflict exists.

Research Ethics

• For studies involving human participants or animals, prior ethical approval must be obtained from a recognized ethics board.
• Informed consent must be documented where applicable.
• All data must be reported accurately without fabrication or falsification.

Confidentiality and Fair Review

Reviewers must:

• Maintain the confidentiality of all materials under review.
• Provide fair, constructive, and timely evaluations.
• Not using unpublished material from submissions for personal advantage

Errata and Retraction Policy

• Once published, a paper may not be modified except through the issuance of an official Erratum.
• Authors must notify the editorial team if they discover a significant error in their published work.
• In cases of major error, data manipulation, or ethical misconduct, a Retraction may be issued at the discretion of the CTRESS 7.0 editorial committee.
• This policy framework ensures that CTRESS 7.0 maintains excellence in scholarly publishing, grounded in fairness, transparency, and academic rigor. All participants are expected to adhere to these policies throughout the publication process.