Human security is one of contemporary global issues that has received considerable attention from academics as well as policy makers across the globe these days, given the situation in the era of digital revolution 4.0 that imposes more challenging circumstance. In addition, humanitarian crisis have been dominant issue that continue to feature in any academic discussions about any possible challenges that come ahead. This situation becomes quite alarming and requires considerable attention from stakeholders to contribute their knowledge in mitigating humanitarian issues such as problems of refugees over conflict and physical violence, children and women trafficking, world hunger (food scarcity), illegal arms trafficking, human rights violations, terrorism and radicalism (intolerant behavior), and so forth.

>>REGISTRATION & PAYMENT<<

>> ARTICLE TEMPLATE <<

KEYNOTE SPEAKER

INVITED SPEAKER

CALL FOR ABSTRACT & PAPER ICONISS 2023:

We invite authors to submit the best articles in the fields of Social, Culture, Social (Equalities and Green Governance, Blue Constitutions in Social Justice,  Poverty Alleviation and Reducing Inequalities, Democracy, Local Politics, and Protecting Natural Resources, Innovative Public Policies under VUCA Era). for publication with the following schedule:

Start of 3rd regular Registration: August 31,  2023

Abstract submission deadline: September 01,  2023

Full paper submission deadline:  September 14, 2023

Conference day: September 16, 2023 (ICONISS)

REVIEW PROCEDURES

ICONISS   2023 uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer’s and author’s identities are concealed throughout the review process. The review process is expected to take one (1) to two (2) weeks. The following are the four main steps of the review process.

The completed manuscript uploaded by the author(s) to the ICONISS   website is then assigned by the Section Editor to see the editorial process.The editor will invite reviewers to assess and judge the submitted manuscript properly.The result of the review will be communicated to the editor for onward transmission to the author(s).If required, the author(s) will revise the manuscript in light of the reviewers’ comments and suggestions and resubmit the manuscript. When the manuscript is finally accepted, the editor will schedule the publication and inform the author(s).

REVIEW POINT

ICONISS   is committed to publishing innovative and sustainable research results with an open-access peer-reviewed process that mediates the dissemination of academicians, researchers, and practitioners in engineering, science, and technology. ICONISS   uses a double-blind review, which means that both the reviewer’s and author’s identities are concealed throughout the review process. The review process is expected to take one (1) to two (2) weeks. The scopes of ICONISS   are Social Equalities and Green Governance, Blue Constitutions in Social Justice,  Poverty Alleviation and Reducing Inequalities, Democracy, Local Politics, and Protecting Natural Resources, Innovative Public Policies under VUCA Era (Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity).

REVIEWERS

ICONISS   has recruited reputation and professional reviewers from universities and institutions worldwide, such as Cambodia, Philippines, Russia, Thailand, Japan, etc. ICONISS   is committed to ensuring the review process is done without conflict of interest and to ensuring the scientific process’s rigorous standards by participating in the peer-review system. Reviewers uphold the integrity of the manuscript by identifying invalid research and helping to help prevent ethical breaches by identifying plagiarism, research fraud and other problems by dint of their familiarity with the subject area.

Publication Ethics

Duties of Authors

1. Reporting Standards: Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. Underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behaviour and are unacceptable.
2. Originality and Plagiarism: The authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that this has been appropriately cited or quoted.
3. Multiple, Redundant or Concurrent Publication: An author should not, in general, publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behaviour and is unacceptable
4. Acknowledgement of Sources: Proper acknowledgement of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
5. Authorship of the Paper: Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
6. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or another substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
7. Fundamental errors in published works: When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.
8. Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects: If the work involves chemicals, procedures or equipment that have any unusual hazards inherent in their use, the author must clearly identify these in the manuscript.

Duties of Editors

1. Fair Play: An editor at any time evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.\
2. Confidentiality: The editor and any editorial staff must not disclose any information about a submitted manuscript to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, other editorial advisers, and the publisher, as appropriate.
3. Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest: Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor's own research without the express written consent of the author.
4. Publication Decisions: The editor board journal is responsible for deciding which of the articles submitted to the journal should be published. The validation of the work in question and its importance to researchers and readers must always drive such decisions. The editors may be guided by the policies of the journal's editorial board and constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. The editors may confer with other editors or reviewers in making this decision.
5. Review of Manuscripts: The editor must ensure that each manuscript is initially evaluated by the editor for originality. The editor should organise and use peer review fairly and wisely. Editors should explain their peer review processes in the information for authors and also indicate which parts of the journal are peer reviewed. The editor should use appropriate peer reviewers for papers that are considered for publication by selecting people with sufficient expertise and avoiding those with conflicts of interest.

Duties of Reviewers

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions: Peer review assists the editor in making editorial decisions and through the editorial communications with the author may also assist the author in improving the paper.
2. Promptness: Any selected referee who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process
3. Standards of Objectivity: Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
4. Confidentiality: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorised by the editor.
5. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest: Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
6. Acknowledgement of Sources: Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

Announcements