All submissions to the CDICS 2025 will be reviewed, the papers will go through the editorial process consisting of two stages: Preliminary review and Peer-Review

Preliminary Review: CDICS Editors perform an preliminary review of the manuscript's suitability to ensure the submission falls within the scope of the conference upon receipt. Preliminary Review is set to check the fundamental elements of the manuscript such as topic,layout, structure, length, language, originality, references and competing interest etc. And each manuscript will be checked if it has potential problem of plagiarism (iThenticate). Papers not passing the plagiarism checking or the topic is out of the conference will be rejected immediately.

Peer Review: Only the papers passed the preliminary review will be double-blind peer-reviewed by 2-3 independent reviewers. Reviewers evaluate submissions based on the requirements of the conference proceedings, predefined criteria, and quality, completeness, originality and grammar of the research presented. Also, reviewers are asked to respond to a short questionnaire that serves as a Reviewer’s checklist and ensures a standardised, comprehensive review. Reviewers should judge the manuscript on the following criteria:

1. Technical Criteria
Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness
Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts
Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing

2. Quality Criteria
Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results
Language: English, grammar, clarity and logical flow be inclusive, appropriate and understandable for editors, reviewers and future readers

3. Presentation Criteria
Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear?
Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?


Accept: The paper is considered to be of sufficient quality to accepted without any further revisions.
Accept with Revisions: The paper will be accepted after minor revisions based on the reviewer’s comments.
Needs Improvement: the author is expected to submit a revised version for further comments within a certain period of time.
Reject: The paper is rejected due to due to major deficiencies.

Authors are required to respond to the peer review comments in details and make minor or major revisions according to the points raised. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed. Acceptance is granted when reviewers' recommendations are positive.In cases of strong disagreement between the reviewers or between the Authors and Reviewers, the Editor can assess these according to his/her expertise or seek advice from a member of the program board.


CDICS is utterly intolerant of plagiarism. Submitted papers are expected to contain original work executed by the authors with adequate, proper and scholarly citations to the work of others. It is the job of the authors to clearly identify both their own contribution(s) and also published results / techniques on which they depend or build. Reviewers are charged to ensure these standards are met.
If the author is found to commit an act of plagiarism, the following acts of sanction will be taken:
1. Reject the article submitted or delete the article from the final publications.
2. Report the authors violation to his/her supervisor(s) and affiliated institution(s).
3. Report the authors violation to the appropriate overseeing office of academic ethics and research funding agency.
4. Reserve the right to publish the authors name(s), the title of the article, the name(s) of the affiliated institution and the details of misconduct, etc. of the plagiarist”.