Editorial Process
Submission and Peer Review Process
All stages of submission, review, and publication for the ISARM 2026 proceedings are managed through the OJS Conference IPB system. The assessment of manuscripts is carried out by the peer reviewer and editorial board. The review process is conducted in a double blind review. Upon submission, the Chief Editor and Section Editor conduct an initial internal evaluation before assigning the manuscript to two independent peer reviewers.
The review process typically spans two to three weeks. If a conflict arises—such as a rejection recommendation from one reviewer—the Chief Editor will consult the Section Editor to determine the final course of action. The final decision regarding acceptance, revision, or rejection rests with the Chief Editor.
Revision Stages
Authors are expected to adhere to a structured revision timeline, which generally involves the following five steps:
-
Pre-review revision: Initial adjustments requested by editors (approx. 2 weeks).
-
Post-peer review revision: Incorporating feedback from external reviewers (2–3 weeks).
-
Editorial refinement: Final adjustments requested by the Section Editor prior to the PROOF stage (2 weeks).
-
Gallery PROOF review: Final check of the formatted PDF (1 week).
-
Board suggestions: Minor final adjustments requested by the Editorial Board, if necessary (1 week).
Final Decision and Copyright
Accepted manuscripts will proceed to the PROOF stage, where authors must meticulously review the PDF version and return any corrections within seven working days. Conversely, rejected manuscripts will be notified with a formal statement, often cited due to misalignment with the conference’s scope, failure to meet academic standards, or non-compliance with the Author Guidelines.
