Review Process

Review Process

ICAS relies on the contributions of numerous international scholars and professionals who support our mission in various ways. These include fostering global collaboration, enhancing intercultural understanding, promoting interdisciplinary dialogue, and generating new knowledge. Our commitment to maintaining a rigorous and fair peer review process is central to our operations, adhering to internationally recognized double-blind review standards. We are immensely grateful for the expertise, time, and dedication shared by all our contributors.

Reviewer Selection

The peer review procedure is carefully managed by members of the conference Organizing Committee, involving both reciprocal review and the establishment of Review Committees. Most of our reviewers are distinguished academics with PhDs or equivalent qualifications in their respective fields, who have had papers accepted and published at other CMS-related conferences and possess substantial peer review experience. Additionally, reviewers may include scholars who have volunteered their services, either by direct invitation or by expressing interest in assisting ICAS. Those wishing to join the Review Committee are encouraged to apply by emailing icas@live.undip.ac.id.

Full Paper Review Process

ICAS operates a double-blind peer review system, where each submitted paper is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers. Upon submission, papers undergo an initial internal review to ensure compliance with academic standards and to filter out incomplete or irrelevant submissions. Only those papers that pass this initial screening are then forwarded to two external reviewers. These reviewers thoroughly assess the paper and provide feedback through a structured review form.

Notification of Acceptance or Rejection

Authors of full papers typically receive a decision regarding acceptance or rejection within four weeks of submission. Accepted authors will be notified by email and will receive an official Letter of Acceptance along with the review form as PDF files. Abstract authors usually receive acceptance or rejection notifications within two to three weeks of submission, with accepted authors receiving similar email communication and the official Letter of Acceptance in PDF format.

Assessment Criteria

The following criteria provide guidance for reviewers assessing full papers and should be considered when making evaluations:

Originality

Does the paper offer an extension or replication of previous research? If so, does it contribute genuinely new insights or reinforce earlier findings, addressing limitations such as small sample sizes or other design issues?

Impact

Does the paper address a significant issue in the field? How does the research advance knowledge in the area? What implications do the findings have for the methodologies and concepts driving progress? Are the results robust enough to influence the work of researchers, educators, and policymakers?

Quality of Research Design and Data Analysis

Is the research design clearly outlined? Are sampling methods adequately described, with appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria? Is there potential for selection bias? Are the measurement tools valid and reliable? Have confounding variables been considered? Are the statistical analyses appropriate for the design?

Conclusions

Are the conclusions clearly stated and logically derived from the data? Are the conclusions substantiated by the results, or are they overstated in relation to the evidence?

Quality of Presentation

Is the paper written clearly and concisely? Are the study’s objectives, methods, and findings easily understandable?