All accepted full papers for the LIMEN 2021 International Scientific Conference will be placed in the LIMEN 2021 Conference Proceedings Pre-draft. Afterwards there will be three circles of full papers’ selection from the LIMEN 2021 Conference Proceedings pre-draft.
1st Circle – Selected papers will be published in the publication titled: LIMEN 2021 Selected Papers – the 7th Conference on Leadership, Innovation, Management and Economics with an ISSN number. This publication will be submitted to indexation and / or publication and / or the listing at the ISI Web of Science (WOS) Conference Proceedings Citation Index, SCOPUS, EBSCO, CiteSeerX, ERA, ProQuest, Google Books, Google Scholar database and so on.
2nd Circle – Extended and improved versions of the selected papers will be published in a partner monograph as book chapters. There will be additional independent peer review process.
3rd Circle – Extended and improved versions of the selected papers will be published in highly esteemed partner journals published in different countries by different faculties and universities.
If the full paper is being published in one of the above named publications from the three circles, its abstract will be published in the LIMEN 2021 Book of Abstracts (ISBN number will be assigned).
Other, non-selected full papers, but accepted for the conference, will be published in the LIMEN 2021 Conference Proceedings (ISBN and DOI numbers will be assigned).
Full paper and abstract publication does not require online presentation or virtual presentation.
Certificate of attendance will be send by regular mail to all authors after the conference.
Official language of the LIMEN conference is English. Papers may be written and presented in English.
Except conference registration fee, there are no any additional nor hidden publication costs.
In order to avoid high commission of money transfer by bank wire transfer which may go up to 35% of the transferred amount, participants may pay the conference registration fee via PayPal (5% commission).
All received papers prior peer review process will be subject of plagiarism check with Crosscheck powered by Crossref software. Afterwards, papers will be peer reviewed by the reviewers drawn from the scientific committee or external reviewers depending on the topic, title and the subject matter of the paper.
Selection of papers which will be presented at the conference day will be based upon quality, originality, and relevance.
Registration and peer review process
Abstracts are submitted on the website – email submissions are not accepted. Each abstract is reviewed in a double-blind peer review process. The double-blind review process ensure that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous during the peer review process. Authors do not know who conducted their reviews, reviewers do not know whose abstract/paper they are reviewing.
Peer reviewers are pre-registered on the website. At the beginning of the review period, peer reviewers are requested to confirm that they are available to review abstracts and/or full papers. Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review an abstract is 20-30 minutes.
Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations. Reviewers can provide feedback for the author, and also private feedback for the editor.
Authors will be notified by email if their abstract has been accepted. There is no second review of abstracts that have been accepted “with modification”. The modification of the abstract takes place when the full paper is submitted.
Full papers are submitted for double-blind peer review after successful acceptance of a conference abstract. Peer reviewers complete their review on the website, which involves both multiple-choice selects and free-form comment assessments.
Peer reviewers provide a critical assessment of the paper, and may recommend improvements. Although the author may choose not to take this advice, it is highly recommended that the author address any issues, explaining why their research process or conclusions are correct.
Notes for Peer Reviewers
Peer reviewers should be aware that the MINIMUM time required to review a paper is at least 1 hour and significantly more time is common in order to do them justice. Peer reviewers should be prepared to provide some detail, particularly for negative evaluations.
If you are invited to review a full paper, please consider:
- Do you have time to do the review by the deadline?
- Is the article within your area of expertise?
- Are you sure you will complete the review by the deadline?
Peer review of full papers is NOT about correcting grammar, spelling, poorly written references. It is about reviewing the academic validity and relevance of the paper! As a reviewer, if you find yourself correcting spelling, you are probably becoming bogged down in the detail, when you are meant to be assessing the “big picture”!
Full papers are evaluated against the following criteria:
1. The title, abstract and keywords must accurately reflect the paper’s contents.
2. The research must be relevant to the conference theme/s.
3. The research methodology must be sound.
4. The paper must be well-structured and clearly written.
5. References must be relevant and accurate.
The conference scientific committee makes decisions where there is a significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations. Authors may be asked to revise their full paper where it does not correspond to their abstract, where layout or references are formatted incorrectly, to correct grammar or improve on the paper quality.
Where the conference committee requires a revision, the paper will not be published without the revision or an approved explanation of the issue.
Any identified plagiarism will automatically disqualify a paper.