Propositions regarding papers/proceedings
All submitted papers will be peer reviewed by the reviewers drawn from the scientific committee or external reviewers depending on the topic, title and the subject matter of the paper.
Selection of papers which will be presented at the conference venue will be based upon quality, originality, and relevance.
Paper or abstract publication does not require presentation at the conference venue.
Publication of one paper prior requires payment of one registration fee, regardless of the number of authors (is there one author or two/three co-authors).
Proceedings will be indexed with ISSN, ISBN, CIP, Cobiss.SR number and DOI numbers.
The official languages of the conference are Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Montenegrin, Slovenian, Macedonian, Russian and English. Papers may be written and presented in one of these languages.
Receive immediate 20% registration fee discount
Apply to serve as peer reviewer and pay 75,40 Eur instead of 94,25 Eur for EMAN 2021
Peer reviewers receive 20% discount on a conference registration fee.
You just need to fill in registration form for peer reviewers (button below) before or at the same time when submitting an abstract for EMAN 2021 to receive immediate discount. We will get back to you as a peer reviewer to review one conference or monograph paper from 8 to 16 pages. For 20% discount of one EMAN 2021 registration fee it is enough that one co-author serve as peer reviewer. Furthermore, diligent peer reviewers will be invited to serve as Scientific Committee members of the EMAN conference.
Registration and peer review process
Abstracts are submitted on the website – email submissions are not accepted. Each abstract is reviewed in a double-blind peer review process. The double-blind review process ensure that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the peer review process. Authors do not know who conducted their reviews, reviewers do not know whose abstract/paper they are reviewing.
Peer reviewers are pre-registered on the website. At the beginning of the review period, peer reviewers are requested to confirm that they are available to review abstracts and/or full papers. Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review an abstract is 20-30 minutes.
Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations. Reviewers can provide feedback for the author, and also private feedback for the editor.
Authors will be notified by email if their abstract has been accepted. There is no second review of abstracts that have been accepted “with modification”. The modification of the abstract takes place when the full paper is submitted.
Full papers are submitted for double-blind peer review after successful acceptance of a conference abstract. Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments.
Peer reviewers provide a critical assessment of the paper, and may recommend improvements. Although the author may choose not to take this advice, it is highly recommended that the author address any issues, explaining why their research process or conclusions are correct.
Notes for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review a paper is at least 1 hour and significantly more time is common in order to do them justice. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations.
If you are invited to review a full paper, please consider:
- Do you have time to do the review by the deadline?
- Is the article within your area of expertise?
- Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline?
Peer review of full papers is NOT about correcting grammar, spelling, poorly written references. It is about reviewing the academic validity and relevance of the paper! As a reviewer, if you find yourself correcting spelling, you are probably becoming bogged down in the detail, when you are meant to be assessing the “big picture”!
Full papers are evaluated against the following criteria:
1. The title, abstract and keywords must accurately reflect the paper’s contents.
2. The research must be relevant to the conference theme/s.
3. The research methodology must be sound.
4. The paper must be well-structured and clearly written.
5. References must be relevant and accurate.
The conference scientific committee makes decisions where there is a significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations. Authors may be asked to revise their full paper where it does not correspond to their abstract, where layout or references are formatted incorrectly, to correct grammar or improve on the paper quality.
Where the conference committee requires a revision, the paper will not be published without the revision or an approved explanation of the issue.
Any identified plagiarism will automatically disqualify a paper.