People
Ideas
A brighter tomorrow

Paper Submission & Guidelines


submission

Paper Submission & Guidelines

Please submit your full paper/abstract to us via the Submission Link or send as attachments to ​info@cambridgeinnovationcenter.org


Submit your paper

Full paper submission

1. The manuscript should be written in English including tables, figures, equations, and algorithms.

2. Only original papers will be considered. The manuscripts must not be previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, must not be under review by any other conference or publication during the review cycle.

3. The research topic of manuscripts should fall into the conference scopes( refer to the CFP), and it is presented with logic and complete structure, relevant information, significant results and etc.

4. The accepted paper no less than 5 pages including all figures, tables, references and appendices.

​INSTRUCTIONS FOR AUTHORS

01

Full paper submission

The manuscript should contain at least five papers, and all content, including tables, figures, equations, and algorithms, must be written in English.

2. Only original papers will be considered. The manuscripts must not be previously published or accepted for publication elsewhere, must not be under review by any other conference or publication during the review cycle.

3. The research topic of manuscripts should fall into the conference scopes( refer to the CFP), and it is presented with logic and complete structure, relevant information, significant results and etc.

4. The accepted paper no less than 5 pages including all figures, tables, references and appendices.

PEER REVIEW OVERVIEW

The proceeding adheres to a rigorous, double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:


01

Manuscript Allocation：

Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to 2–3 independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.

02

1 week

Initial Screening

Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards are desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.

03

3 weeks

In-Depth Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:

•A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)

•Constructive comments for improvement

•A confidential recommendation to the Editor

04

Decision-Making & Conflict Resolution

The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of 【40%】, which balances selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.

05

Author Notification

Authors receive a decision within 1-week post-review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision (2-month revision window).

06

Revisions & Appeals

Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within 2 weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.

REVIEWER'S CRITERIA 

Reviewers are typically asked to evaluate papers based on several criteria:

01

Originality and Innovation

Is the paper presenting new ideas, methodologies, or findings? Does it contribute to the advancement of the field?

02

Technical Soundness

Are the methods used sound and appropriate?  Is the analysis rigorous?  Are the results well-supported by the data?

03

Relevance to Conference

Does the paper fit within the scope of the conference themes and tracks?

04

Clarity and Organisation

Is the paper well-organized, with clear arguments and structure? Are the ideas presented in a coherent and understandable way?

05

Literature Review & Citations

Does the paper appropriately engage with existing literature? Is there a clear understanding of the state of the field?

06

Ethical Considerations

Does the paper appropriately engage with existing literature? Is there a clear understanding of the state of the field?

07

Practical Implications

For applied research, reviewers will also assess the potential practical impact or applications of the findings.

ETHICS & TRANSPARENCY

COPE Compliance

All participants follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines.

Gender & geographic inclusion

Reviewers evaluate whether gender, race, or geographic factors are appropriately addressed.

Diversity oversight

Committee oversight supports balanced and equitable representation across proceedings.

AI tool usage

AI may assist copy-editing, but cannot replace intellectual originality or be listed as a co-author.