Submission and Peer Review
Guidelines and portal for the 4th International Conference on Mechatronic Automation and Electrical Engineering (ICMAEE 2026)
1
The submitted papers must not be under consideration elsewhere.
2
Please send the full paper to the Submission System.
3
Please submit the full paper, if presentation and publication are both needed.
4
Please submit the abstract only, if you just want to make presentations.
5
Paper format: Authors must prepare their papers using Microsoft Word, according to the guidelines and templates, and then convert these files to PDF. Submissions must be self-contained. Authors are required to submit their electronic papers in WORD and PDF format. Papers will be accepted in English only.
Peer Review Process Overview
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.
Initial Screening (1 week): 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. To keep scientific integrity, one of our editors will run Turnitin on each new submission to check if it has potential problem of plagiarism. Papers not passing the plagiarism check will be desk rejected immediately.
In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:
1. Originality and Innovation: Is the paper presenting new ideas, methodologies, or findings? Does it contribute to the advancement of the field?
2. Technical Soundness: Are the methods used sound and appropriate? Is the analysis rigorous? Are the results well-supported by the data?
3. Relevance to the Conference: Does the paper fit within the scope of the conference themes and tracks?
4. Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well-organized, with clear arguments and structure? Are the ideas presented in a coherent and understandable way?
5. Literature Review and References: Does the paper appropriately engage with existing literature? Is there a clear understanding of the state of the field?
6. Ethical Considerations: Does the research adhere to ethical standards, especially in areas like data privacy, human subjects, etc.?
7. Practical Implications: For applied research, reviewers will also assess the potential practical impact or applications of the findings.
8. Each of these criteria is typically scored on a numerical scale (e.g., 1-5), and reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement.
· A categorical rating (Accept/Minor Revision/Major Revision/Reject)
· Constructive comments for improvement
· A confidential recommendation to the Editor
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.
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). Authors are required to respond to the peer review comments in details and revise their paper according to the points raised.
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.