Decisions rest solely on scientific merit and scope fit, independent of commercial incentives .
The committee ensures transparent workflows, maintaining records of reviews, decisions, and correspondence .
Vigilance against review manipulation (e.g., fraudulent reviewer identities, peer-review rings) is practiced, following COPE flowcharts.
In case of suspected ethical breaches (e.g., plagiarism, data issues), the committee investigates per COPE procedures potential actions include rejection, retraction, or notification to authors’ institutions
5. Misconduct and Appeals
Reports of suspected misconduct will trigger transparent, fair, and confidential investigations .
Depending on severity, actions may include manuscript rejection, proceedings removal, author bans, or institution reporting.
Authors may appeal decisions by submitting a written appeal within 10 days of notification; appeals are reviewed by an independent panel.
Peer Review and Publication Workflow – ICAMRI 2025
Step-by-Step ProcessStep 1: Abstract Submission
Authors submit an abstract (up to 300 words, free format).
Reviewed by the Conference Technical Committee for relevance to:
ICAMRI 2025 themes
United Nations SDGs
Publication partner scopes
Decision:
Accepted → Proceed to Registration
Rejected → Exit process
Step 2: Registration
Authors of accepted abstracts must register and pay the conference fee to proceed to full paper submission.
Step 3: Full Paper Submission & Track Allocation
Authors submit full papers in free format (single-column).
The Journal Publication Committee evaluates each paper and decides:
If the manuscript is of sufficient quality, novelty, and scope match for Direct Journal Submission (Regular/Special Issues), or
If it is more appropriate for Conference Proceedings
Authors do not choose the track; it is assigned by the committee based on technical and editorial merit.After abstract acceptance:
Authors must complete registration and fee payment.
Authors are required to prepare a camera-ready presentation (oral or poster as applicable) for the conference.
Presentation at the conference is mandatory for:
Final inclusion in the proceedings or journal recommendation list
Issuance of final certificates (presentation + participation)
Note: If the author fails to present during the conference, the paper will not be considered for publication, and no certificate will be issued, even if the abstract was accepted.
Step 4: Peer Review Based on Assigned Track
Track A: Journal Submission
Manuscript submitted to the partner Scopus-indexed journal by invitation.
Undergoes journal-managed peer review (single or double blind).
Journal editors make the final publication decision.
If accepted:
APC may apply (ICAMRI discounts provided if the Journal Open Access).
Paper enters journal’s publication workflow (proofing, indexing).
Track B: Conference Proceedings
Reviewed by ICAMRI’s internal peer review committee via single-blind process:
Reviewer identity hidden, authors visible
Minimum two reviewers per paper
Evaluation based on originality, technical rigor, clarity, scope match
Plagiarism check conducted via iThenticate (threshold: ≤10%)
Outcomes:
Accepted
Minor/Major Revision
Rejected
Accepted and revised papers proceed to proofing and are included in the Scopus-indexed proceedings.
Step 5: Finalization & Publication
Track
Peer Review By
Final Decision By
APC
Outlet
Journal Submission
Journal Reviewers (via journal)
Journal Editors
May apply (discounted)
Scopus-Indexed Journal (Regular/Special)
Conference Proceedings
ICAMRI Peer Review Committee
Conference Committee
Included in fee
Scopus-Indexed Proceedings Series
Step 6: Proofreading & Online Release
Final proofreading is completed by the publishing team (either the journal or proceedings editor).
Authors receive galley proofs for approval.
Papers are published online and indexed.
Ethical Compliance
ICAMRI 2025 strictly follows COPE Core Practices:
No dual submissions or plagiarism (checked via iThenticate).
Transparent peer review with editorial independence.
Clear policies on authorship, conflicts of interest, and misconduct.
All reviewers and editors are subject to confidentiality and ethical obligations.