Publication Process
SOBER Proceedings publishes selected conference papers through a structured process of scientific evaluation, initial editorial screening, peer review, revision, editorial decision, and final publication.
1. Conference Submission and Initial Evaluation
Authors initially submit their abstracts or papers through the submission system of the academic conference associated with the relevant proceedings volume.
Submissions are evaluated within the relevant conference review structure with regard to their academic relevance, originality, methodological quality, contribution to the field, and compatibility with the aims and scope of the conference.
2. Conference Acceptance and Presentation
Papers that successfully complete the conference evaluation process may be accepted for presentation at the associated conference.
Conference acceptance and presentation do not automatically qualify a paper for publication in SOBER Proceedings. Not all papers presented at an associated conference are published in the proceedings. Only selected papers that successfully complete the subsequent editorial screening and peer-review process may be included in the relevant proceedings volume.
3. Full Paper Submission
Following the conference, eligible authors may be invited to submit their full papers for consideration for publication in the relevant SOBER Proceedings volume.
Submitted papers must comply with the academic, ethical, formatting, and bibliographic requirements applicable to the relevant proceedings volume.
4. Initial Editorial Screening
Submitted papers undergo initial editorial screening before peer review.
The screening may include assessment of:
- compatibility with the scope of the relevant proceedings volume;
- completeness and consistency of the paper;
- academic writing and presentation;
- similarity and plagiarism screening;
- compliance with publication ethics requirements;
- citation and reference integrity; and
- compliance with formatting and submission requirements.
Papers that do not meet the required academic or editorial standards may be returned to the authors for revision or declined before peer review.
5. Double-Blind Peer Review
Papers considered suitable following initial editorial screening undergo double-blind peer review and editorial evaluation.
Reviewers are selected on the basis of their academic expertise and suitability for evaluating the subject matter and methodological approach of the paper. Reviewer assignments are made with due consideration to academic independence and potential conflicts of interest.
During peer review, papers are evaluated with regard to:
- originality and academic contribution;
- relevance to the subject area;
- theoretical and/or practical contribution;
- methodological consistency;
- validity and interpretation of findings;
- quality and clarity of academic writing;
- ethical compliance;
- appropriate engagement with the relevant literature; and
- overall scholarly quality.
The identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the double-blind peer-review process.
6. Revision and Editorial Decision
Authors may be requested to revise their papers in response to reviewer and editorial comments.
Revised papers are assessed to determine whether the requested revisions have been adequately addressed. Where necessary, additional revision or further evaluation may be requested.
The final decision regarding publication is made under the responsibility of the Proceedings Editors and the relevant editorial structure.
Completion of peer review does not guarantee acceptance for publication.
7. Production and Publication
Accepted papers undergo final editorial and production checks before publication. These checks may include bibliographic verification, metadata control, formatting, pagination, DOI information, and preparation of the final publication files.
Only papers that successfully complete all required stages are published in the relevant SOBER Proceedings volume.