Conference Policies

Archive Access Policy

The presentations that make up the current and archived conferences on this site have been made open access and are freely available for viewing, for the benefit of authors and interested readers.


Review Policy

This review policy is followed for all academic papers submitted to ICLLE by committee. In the first instance, contributors are asked to submit a 300-350 word abstract of their work. The conference selection panel considers all abstracts that are received by the published closing date. At this stage the key issue is the relevance of the proposed contribution. Providing the work is relevant then the author(s) are invited to submit a full paper of a maximum of 5,000 words. When the full paper is submitted, it is single-blind reviewed by the authorities. This review focuses on the issues intended to ensure that the paper is relevant to the conference, is of a sufficiently high quality to be accepted for presentation at the conference and publication in the conference proceedings and meets the submission criteria laid down by the programme committee. A copy of the Review Form that is sent to reviewers can be seen here. In the event that a reviewer rejects a paper, a second opinion will be taken and the final decision about acceptance made by the programme chair. The conference proceedings are produced in electronic form with ISBN. Submission dates can be found on the web page for each individual conference. These papers are accepted by the committee without having to be written with the same degree of academic rigour.


Peer Review Policy

The peer-review process is managed to ensure the quality and substance of the articles. This process is an objective process carried out with the following procedures:

1. Initial Evaluation. Initial evaluation of all submitted articles to ensure compliance with the scope and writing rules with requirements. Articles that pass the check will be sent to a reviewer.

2. Peer Reviews. The ICLLE's policy applies a single-blind review, in which the author does not know about reviewers. This is done to maintain objectivity.

3. Plotting Reviewers. The reviewer's assignment to an article is based on consideration of the reviewer's field of expertise.

4. Reviewer's Report. Reviewers are assigned to provide feedback/reviews on articles by considering originality, structure and flow of writing, code of ethics for scientific writing, ownership of clear results and supporting what is concluded, references to related previous research.

5. Length of Review Process. The duration of the review process is two (2) week from the start of assignment. Reviewers can provide recommendations in the form of "Article accepted", "Minor revision", "Major revision", or "Article rejected".

If there is a revision, the author will get a notification to make a revision, which will be sent along with the reviewer's comments via email. The revised results will be re-examined to ensure that the notes from the Reviewers have been carried out properly.


Conference Program


Here is the conference program for ICLLE-5: