top of page

Submission Methods & Requirements

1. Papers for publication must be submitted in full paper electronically via the following system. All edition and update must be done up until the submission deadline.

2. The authors are suggested to use the Formatting Template to meet formatting requirements.
Your paper must comply with the following specifications:
Paper Length : Each paper should be more than 4 pages, each registration covers 5 pages, for extra pages, fee will be charged.
Official language is English in paper writing and presenting.

3. Submissions to ICPLSS 2025 should report on significant, original, and previously unpublished results on any aspect of mechanical engineering, control system and automation. All submissions will be subjected to double-blind peer reviews, who are expert or have been experiencing in the related field for years. The accepted papers must be revised, taking into consideration the referees' comments and suggestions, before inclusion in the conference proceedings.

4. At least one of the authors listed on the accepted paper must pay the registration and make a presentation on-site.

Reviewing Process

By submitting a paper to ICEPCC 2025, the authors agree to the review process and understand that papers undergo a peer-review process. Manuscripts will be reviewed by appropriately qualified experts in the field selected by the conference committee, who will give detailed comments, and if the submission gets acceptance, the authors submit a revised version that takes into account this feedback. All papers are reviewed using a double-blind review process. The Committees of ICEPCC 2025 invest great efforts in reviewing the papers submitted to the conference and organizing the sessions to enable the participants to gain maximum benefit.

Peer Review Process Overview

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

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

bottom of page