Author Guidelines
Comprehensive instructions for abstract and full paper submissions to ensure a smooth evaluation process.
đź“Ś General Information
Paper Format
The submitted paper must be formatted according to the guidelines of Procedia Computer Science, MS Word Template, Latex, Template Generic, Elsevier.
Paper Length
Submitted technical papers must be no longer than 7 pages including all figures, tables and references.
Paper Submission
Authors are requested to submit their papers electronically using https://cmt3.research.microsoft.com/icaidas2026 in PDF format before the deadline (see Important Dates).
CMT ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
The Microsoft CMT service was used for managing the peer-reviewing process for this conference. This service was provided for free by Microsoft and they bore all expenses, including costs for Azure cloud services as well as for software development and support.
Publication
All accepted papers will be scheduled for oral presentations and will be included in the conference proceedings published by Elsevier Science in the open-access Procedia Computer Science series on-line indexed by Scopus. At least one author of each accepted paper is required to register and attend the conference to present the work.
Selected papers will be invited for publication, in the special issues of:
- -To be defined-
For more information, please contact: – –
đź“„ Abstract Submission Guidelines
General Rules
- Language: All abstracts must be written in English.
- Length: Abstracts should be between 200 to 250 words, written as a single paragraph.
- Format: Submit your abstract as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx).
Content Requirements
- Clearly and concisely summarize the purpose, methods, results, and conclusion of your original work.
- Include a brief biography of the presenting author, following the format in the provided sample abstract template.
Formatting Instructions
- Center-align the title, authors’ names, and institutional affiliations.
- The presenting author’s name must be underlined.
- Use the provided template to ensure consistency and formatting compliance.
- Include a brief biography of the presenting author.
Submission & Acknowledgment
- Process: Abstracts must be submitted through the official submission portal on the conference website.
- Acknowledgment: An acknowledgment email will be sent within three working days of submission.
- Important Note: Only abstracts that meet all formatting and submission criteria will be considered for review.
⏱️ Abstract Evaluation Process
1. Submission
Authors submit their abstracts through the conference submission portal.
2. Rapid Double-Blind Peer Review
Each abstract undergoes a rigorous double-blind peer review process, typically completed within 2–3 working days.
3. Results Notification
Authors are notified of the evaluation results within 2–4 days of submission.
4. Revisions (If Required)
If revisions are requested, authors will be given one week to resubmit their amended abstract.
5. Reviewer Feedback
In the case of rejection, authors will receive detailed reviewer suggestions to support future improvement.
🔍 Peer-Review and Evaluation Procedure
All submitted papers will undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure scientific quality, originality, relevance, and academic integrity. The evaluation process will be managed by the Technical Program Committee and supervised by the Program Chairs.
Each submission will first be checked for compliance with the conference scope, formatting requirements, plagiarism policy, and ethical standards. Papers that do not meet the basic requirements or show a high similarity rate may be desk-rejected before the review stage.
Eligible papers will then be assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers, and preferably three when needed. The review process will follow a double-blind peer-review model. Reviewers will be selected according to their expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Evaluation Criteria
Each paper will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Originality and novelty of the contribution;
- Relevance to the conference topics;
- Technical soundness and methodological rigor;
- Clarity of problem formulation and objectives;
- Quality of experiments, results, and discussion;
- Comparison with recent and relevant literature;
- Clarity of writing, organization, and presentation;
- Significance of the contribution for research and/or practice.
Decisions & Final Steps
Reviewers will provide detailed comments, constructive feedback, and a clear recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. In case of contradictory reviews, the paper will be examined by a Program Chair or a senior committee member, and an additional review may be requested.
Final acceptance decisions will be made by the Program Chairs based on reviewer reports, technical quality, originality, relevance, and the overall balance of the conference program. Authors of accepted papers may be required to revise their manuscripts according to reviewers’ comments before final submission.
All accepted papers must be presented during the conference by at least one registered author. Papers that are not presented may be excluded from the final proceedings. The conference will also apply strict policies regarding plagiarism, duplicate submission, self-plagiarism, ethical approval when required, and conflicts of interest.