Authors and Reviewers Guidelines

You are here

Basic ISIF and FUSION author guidelines

  • A1 - Authors must submit their own original works only.
  • A2 - Authors must not omit the main references done by others and related to their works.
  • A3 - Authors must follow typesetting guidelines (templates) of the ISIF JAIF Journal or of the ISIF Fusion conference.
  • A4 - Authors must agree with ISIF copyright agreement, once the paper is accepted for publication.
  • A5 - Authors must employ professional language and they must avoid excessive verbosity that would dilute the technical clarity.

For the FUSION conferences, following guidelines also apply

  • F1 Papers must be presented at the conference.
  • F2 Critical technical comments of technical reviewers and the technical program committee must be adequately reflected in the final manuscript.

Preparing Your Submission

Submitted papers published on the Fusion 2016 Conference Proceedings must meet established IEEE and ISIF standards and requirements. These apply to post-conference distribution of the Conference Proceedings as well, including submission to IEEE Xplore. 

Formatting, Templates, and Forms

All papers must be formatted according to the IEEE Xplore template (letter Size Paper). Templates and other supporting files for various types of computers and operational systems can be downloaded using the following links:


Submission Policies

The initial submission of each paper for the review process consists of a unique file, in PDF format. The paper title and authors must match the information entered in the EDAS system. Papers should be strictly no fewer than 4 pages, and preferably no more than 8 pages in length. There will be a charge of € 100 for each additional page beyond 8 pages. Shorter submissions might be automatically rejected by the system, otherwise they will be rejected during the review process.

Note that the above length (4-8 pages) is based on the submission template adopted by the Fusion 2016 conference, which is available in different formats via the links above. Changes to the template formatting standards, such as modifying the font size (9 points for the abstract, 10 points for the text, etc.) will disqualify the submission.

Submission of final versions of accepted papers (i.e. camera-ready submissions) must include a copyright form. To prepare their copyright forms, authors should download the copyright form and perform either of the two alternatives for having it signed:

  1. Print, manually sign, and scan the signed form.
  2. Digitally sign the form (e.g. using Adobe Acrobat™)

After papers are accepted, a link will be made available to authors in EDAS by which completed copyright forms can be uploaded. There is no need to include the copyright form with the initial submission.

The conference proceedings will have its own formatting with respect to numbering and identification. Therefore, papers should not include page numbers or conference name.

Review Process

Fusion 2016 welcomes the submission of papers covering the topics listed in the call for papers. All submitted papers will undergo a thorough review process; each paper will be refereed by at least three experts in the field based on relevance, originality, significance, quality, and clarity.

Fusion 2016 follows a single-blind review process. All submissions must include information that identifies its authors.


ISIF Reviewer guidelines

  • R1 - Reviewers must be technically competent in the specific technical area addressed by the paper under review. In particular, if a reviewer accepts to review a paper, he/she must accept to read it in sufficient depth to understand it and to refer to related earlier works reported in peer-reviewed journals (if any, and if necessary).
  • R2 - Reviewers must employ professional language and they must avoid matters of literary taste, unless the authors’ literary style subverts technical clarity (excessive verbosity, for instance).
  • R3 - Reviewers must provide a fair appreciation of the technical content of the paper, and also give some recommendations for its improvement whenever possible.
  • R4 - Reviewers must have no personal, nor professional conflict of interest with the authors and must not try to block the publication, only if the technical content of the paper is proved incorrect. Every negative criticism about the paper must only be substantiated by sound scientific arguments.
  • R5 - Reviewers must alert for possible plagiarism as defined by the IEEE: “...the reuse of someone else's prior ideas, processes, results, or words without explicitly acknowledging the original author and source”.
  • R6 - Reviewers can recommend a few main references(s) related to the paper that have been omitted by the author(s), if any. This recommendation must be done sparingly and with carefulness. It must not be done to inflate the reviewer’s own bibliometric score, nor the scores of their associates.
  • R7 - Reviewers must not try to impose their own ideas to modify the original direction of the paper under review. If the technical content of the paper is correct and if reviewers dislike the ideas developed in the paper, reviewers must accept the paper and they are free to submit later their own paper on the same topic once the accepted paper has been published.
  • R8 - Reviewers are not allowed to diffuse or share by any means the content of the paper that they have accepted to review, nor use its technical content (even partially) for their own purposes.