Review Process

Peer-reviewing is of vital importance to ensure the scientific quality of conference papers. Papers submitted to NanoMT are subject to transparent, unprejudiced and efficient peer review, which is carried out by dedicated editors (assumed by Program Chair, Program Co-Chair and committee members appointed by Conference Chair) and reviewers. 

The editorial process of a paper consists of two parts: Initial Check and Peer Review. Note that, only full paper will be assigned for peer review. Abstracts submitted to NanoMT are assessed by the editor to decide whether accept for the conference presentation.

The paper will be sent to an editor for initial check. Once passing the initial check, it will be assigned to two reviewers of the relevant research areas for peer review. A minimum of two reviewers will carefully review the manuscript and report their recommendations to the editor. After authors’ revisions (if requested by the editor), the editor will make the ultimate acceptance or rejection decision for the paper. 

During the editorial process, conference support team take the responsibility of coordination between the publisher and authors, copyediting work and other necessary publication support.

Statements of Originality

The conference firmly resists the plagiarism, self-plagiarism and other unethical behaviors. Any act of plagiarism is unacceptable, which is considered as a serious breach of professional conduct, with potentially severe ethical and legal consequences. Before submission, perspective authors are suggested to make a cross check to ensure that the similarity of manuscript is under 20% (better less than 15%). Meanwhile, please make sure that the similar contents are properly reused based on the checking report. Plagiarism is commonly defined as 'the use of others prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source'. 

Initial Check

The papers will be checked in terms of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, paper length, structure, research topics and language etc. The paper can be sent to double-blind peer-review only if the paper passed the Initial Check. Generally speaking, the initial check feedback is available in 3 working days.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments and other related personal information will be separated from main content before the manuscript is sent to double-blind peer review.

Each paper will be reviewed by at least two reviewers, but usually by three or more to review 'Novelty and Originality, Scientific Soundness, Importance and Impact on the Research Area, Relevance to the Conference and Completeness of Presentation'.

Each reviewer will be assigned to not exceed 3 papers and given 2-4 weeks for one paper reviewing.

The reviewer is accountable for their reviewing recommendation by providing the sufficient, substantial and well-founded comments that may help the authors to optimize the paper. In addition, the reviewer is also probably asked to answer a series of questions by Program Committee relevant to the review. After receiving the review comments, the authors are entitled to the rebuttal and its feedback. 


Papers accepted to the conference will be involved in the conference proceedings and publish with a collaborative publisher. Although publishable criteria may have slight difference among publishers, widely-accepted sets of criteria have been enforced in IASED conference for paper selection and publication to ensure high-quality publication.


The manuscripts submitted to the conference should be written in English, which is required to be inclusive, appropriate and understandable for editors, reviewers and future readers. Please use proper grammar, fluent sentence, choose good word and avoid syntax error in your paper. Authors should be aware that comprehension difficulties may lead to rejection of the paper.


Papers presenting the study of authors should match the scope of the conference. Please look through the Call for Paper first to check topics of interest of this conference before submitting your paper. It’s welcome to send a query email to us if you have doubt on whether your paper suit this conference.

Scientific Significance

With the publication of conference proceedings, your work will be presented to the scientific communities as well. Authors should guarantee the objectivity, reliability, validity and replication of results, and the presented research in the paper should be worth reading, publishing, and sharing from the perspective of editors and reviewers.

Scientific Rigor

Authors are accountable for conducting the research with scientific rigor and implementing the highest standards in their research from subject selection to data analysis. Sufficient details need to be provided to allow reviewers evaluate their work and other experts to replicate the research.

Presentation Quality

Data, analyses and results of the study should be presented in an appropriate way. High quality of presentation makes your reach easier to understand and removes obstacles in the peer review process.


Submitted papers should be well formatted. The conference provides templates to help authors typeset their manuscripts before submission. For late break submissions, please contact the conference support team for the latest templates.

Decision and revision

Authors will get notified of these four possible feedbacks after the peer review process:


The paper is accepted and do not need any modification.

Accept with minor revisions

The paper will be accepted after minor revisions. In this case, the reviewed paper will only be reviewed by the editor.

Revaluate with major revisions

The paper will be sent to be reviewed by the original reviewers (unless they opt out) or assessed by the editor.


The paper will not be accepted due to major deficiencies. And it is not recommended to be resubmitted.

Note: Authors are entitled to lodge rebuttal or raise questions about the editorial comments.

Peer Review Process