Program & Key-Dates

REGISTRATION/PRICING*

* All prices excluding VAT

** Participants will present their paper in online sessions. It cannot be guaranteed that the presentations presented on-site will be streamed online and will be available accordingly for online attendees. 

AUTHORS RESPONSIBILITIES AND GUIDELINES

As the author of the submitted paper, it is your responsibility to ensure that the paper contains both a technically and grammatically correct content. Authors are required to write their papers in the format specified in the submission template.

All papers should be written in good English and the general good practice for scientific papers must be obeyed (e.g., ELSEVIER, DFG, Deutscher Hochschulverband). This is the responsibility of the authors, not the editors. Work below the standard will be returned to the authors for rewriting and may be rejected for this reason alone. Mathematical formulas and equations must be presented professionally and in standard format. General format and style can be found in the provided submission template. For detailed information on creating mathematical formulas and equations, see the Word guidelines.

In order for papers to be published via publish-Ing. and the Leibniz Information Centre for Science and Technology and University Library (TIB), the authors must transfer a right of use for their paper to  the operators of publish-Ing. and the repository (Leibniz University Hanover and TIB) – for online provision on publish-Ing. and in the repository. All papers will be published under the Creative Commons licence: ,Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Germany’ (here).
By submitting your paper, you agree to accept the license agreement or authorize the organizers of the conference to accept it for you. For more information, visit the TIB repository at https://www.repo.uni-hannover.de.

REVIEW PROCEEDURE

All papers will be subject of the 2 level peer-review process. For the level 1, all papers will be assigned to members of our Scientific committee for review according to their technical focus. As the author of a submitted paper, you will automatically also be included in level 2 of our peer-review process to review a paper by another author. For this purpose, you will receive an e-mail with the paper to be reviewed as well as brief instructions and further information no later than two weeks after the submission deadline. In parallel, another author will be asked to review your paper. After you have completed the review, it will be released by the editors and forwarded to the author. Please note that the reviews for your own paper will not be available until you have completed the review for the other author. You will be informed about the availability of your reviews via e-mail. If you have not been assigned a paper for review three weeks after the submission deadline, please contact the CPSL team.

REVIEWER RESPONSIBILITIES

Reviewers should evaluate the papers based on the manuscript’s merits. Age, race, colour, ethnicity, gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation and institutional affiliation must not influence the review. The reviewers must complete their work within the timeframe set by the editor (see reviewers deadline). Reviewers must also refuse to review any manuscript for which they have a conflict of interest.
Although a critical evaluation of the papers is appropriate, the reviewers should formulate their comments in a positive tone. The reviewer’s comments should be clear and recommend a particular course of action. The reviewers should pay particular attention to good practice in science and citation. In addition to their remarks, reviewers should make a general recommendation for rejection, revision and resubmission or acceptance. The content of contributions is confidential until the papers are officially published. Reviewers must refrain from seizing information in unpublished or rejected papers for their own purposes.

EDITOR RESPONSIBILITIES

The editors’ task is to ensure that the necessary procedures are carried out and that the publishing processes are conscientiously followed. With the reviews produced per paper, editors receive guidance, but have full and final authority to decide whether a contribution is accepted or rejected. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of authors and reviewers to ensure that all rules of good scientific practice are followed. Critical contributions are checked by the editors to the best of their knowledge and belief – in case of doubt, they are entitled to obtain a further, independent opinion in the form of a further review. Editors manage the communication with reviewers and authors as needed. The identity of the reviewer is not disclosed. The editor can accept a paper without request for changes, ask the authors to revise and resubmit the document, or reject the paper. The editors reserve the right to edit, refine, or expand all reviews as necessary in the interest of scientific practice.