ICOGCT depends on the assistance of a large number of international academics and practitioners who contribute in a variety of ways to our shared mission of promoting international exchange, facilitating intercultural awareness, encouraging interdisciplinary discussion and generating and sharing new knowledge. ICOGCT is committed to ensuring a fair and timely peer review process in keeping with established international norms of double-blind peer review, and in this we rely on the assistance of academics around the world. We are grateful for the time, effort and expertise donated by all our contributors.
The peer review process, which
involves both reciprocal review and the use of Review Committees, is overseen by
conference Organising Committee members. The majority of reviewers are
established academics who hold PhDs or other terminal degrees in their fields,
who have had a paper accepted and published at other CMS related conference and
who have previous peer review experience.
Reviewers may also be academics or scholars who have agreed to referee, including those who have volunteered their services by contacting ICMSN. If you would like to be considered to serve as Review Committee, please send application to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Full Paper Review Process
ICOGCT operates a system of double-blind
peer review. A submitted paper is assessed by at least two reviewers.
When papers are submitted, they are immediately reviewed in-house to see if they conform to accepted academic norms, and to screen out incomplete or time-wasting submissions.
All papers which have passed this initial review are then assigned to two reviewers. Each reviewer is asked to read the paper thoroughly and then give comments in the review form.
Notification of Acceptance or Rejection
Full Paper authors are usually informed of acceptance or rejection within four weeks of full papers submission. Accepted authors will receive an email notifying them of the results, as well as an official letter of acceptance and review form as PDFs. Abstract authors are usually informed of acceptance or rejection within two or three weeks of abstract submission. Accepted authors will receive an email notifying them of the results, as well as an official letter of acceptance as a PDF.
The following assessment criteria may act
as a guide when reviewing full papers, and these should be taken into account as
the reviewer decides.
If the paper presents an extension or a replication of previous work, does the new study build on the previous ones? Does it therefore add genuinely new information to current knowledge, or strengthen previous findings that were limited by their small sample sizes or other study design issues?
Does the paper address an important issue? How does the study advance scientific knowledge? What effect do the results have on the concepts or methods that drive progress in the field? Are the results and conclusions strong enough to influence the behaviour of researchers, educators and policymakers?
Quality of Research Design and Data Analysis
Is the study design clearly described? Are sampling procedures adequately described, including inclusion and exclusion criteria? Is there potential selection bias? Are the measures reliable and valid? Are possible confounding factors addressed? Are the statistical analyses appropriate for the study design?
Are the conclusions clearly stated? How well are the conclusions supported by the data? Are conclusions overstated in relation to the results?
Quality of presentation
Is the paper clearly written? Can the study aims, methods and findings be easily understood?