Full Text Guidelines

For The International Conference on Innovative Interdisciplinary Science for an Inclusive and Sustainable Future, we invite full-text submissions that reflect the highest standards of scholarly work. Please follow the guidelines below, which are following the Taylor and Francis Publishing Guidelines:

General Requirements:

The number of pages is 4-6 pages.
Manuscripts should be written in clear and concise English.
The full title should be specific, descriptive, and comprehensible to readers outside the subject field.
Include all authors’ full names, affiliations, country, and ORCID.
The abstract should summarize the study’s main objectives, results, and conclusions.
The introduction should provide sufficient background to contextualize the manuscript for readers outside the field.

Formatting Instructions:

1. General Instructions

1.1 Type Area

Ensure the text fits within the type area of 150 × 240 mm.
For A4 paper, use the following margin settings:
1. Top: 2.5 cm (0.98 inches)
2. Bottom: 3.0 cm (1.18 inches)
3. Left: 3.0 cm (1.18 inches)
4. Right: 3.0 cm (1.18 inches)

1.2 Typefont, Typesize, and Spacing

Use Times New Roman, 11-point size, with 12-point line spacing.
Use roman type except for headings (use Heading tags), mathematical parameters, Latin names of species and genera, and titles of journals and books (in italics).
Use bold only for vectors in mathematics; do not underline text.
Use small font (10 points on 11 points) for tables, figure captions, and references.
Avoid letter spacing and multiple spaces.

2. Getting Started

2.1 Title, Author, and Affiliation Frame

Type the title (not more than 75 characters) in lower case (no caps except for proper names).
Type the author’s name (initials first, then last name). Add co-author names after an ‘&’ if they share the same affiliation.
Type the affiliation: Name of the institute, City, State/Province, Country. Avoid street names, P.O. Box numbers, or zip codes.
Ensure all text fits within the frame (Width: Exactly 15.0 cm or 5.91 inches; Height: Exactly 7.2 cm or 2.79 inches).

2.2 Abstract Frame

Written in the third person e.g. ‘this article discusses’, rather than ‘I discuss’
Self-contained, without abbreviations, footnotes, or incomplete references
Type the abstract (not more than 150 words). Ensure the abstract fits within the frame (Width: Exactly 15.0 cm or 5.91 inches; Height: Automatic).

2.3 First Line of Text or Heading

If starting with a heading, type the heading text, delete the placeholder word, and ensure the text follows the appropriate tag (First paragraph).
If starting without a heading, type the text, delete the placeholder word, and use the First paragraph tag.

3. Layout of Text

3.1 Text and Indenting

Ensure all text, figures, and tables fit within the type area of 15 × 24 cm (5.91 × 9.52 inches).
Use Times New Roman, 11-point size with 12-point line spacing for main text.
Indent the first lines of paragraphs by 4 mm (0.16 inches), except after a heading or blank line (First paragraph tag).
Equations should be indented 12 mm (0.47 inches).

3.2 Headings

Primary headings: All caps, roman (Heading 1 tag).
Secondary and tertiary headings: Lowercase italics (Heading 2 and 3 tags).
Headings should be flush against the left margin with appropriate blank lines above and below as specified.

3.3 Listing and Numbering

Use style tags List summary signs or List number signs for lists.

3.4 Equations

Use the equation editor; indent equations 12 mm (0.47 inches) from the left margin.
Number equations consecutively and place numbers at the end of the line between parentheses.

3.5 Tables

Place tables close to their first reference in the text.
Number tables consecutively; avoid abbreviations in column headings.
Use only horizontal rules: one above and one below the column headings, and one at the foot of the table.

3.6 Figure Captions

Use the Figure caption style tag (10 points on 11 points line spacing).
Place captions underneath figures.

3.7 References

Follow APA 7th Edition guidelines for references.
In-text citations: (Smith, 2020), (Smith & Jones, 2020), (Smith et al., 2020).
Reference list: Alphabetical order by author’s last name. Use small text (10 pt on 11 pt) with a 4 mm indent for second and further lines.

3.8 Notes

Avoid using notes; incorporate information directly into the text.

3.9 Conclusions

Summarize the most important propositions and practical implications concisely.

4. Photographs and Figures

Number figures consecutively.
Ensure figures fit within the column width of 90 mm (3.54 inches) or the type area width of 187 mm (7.36 inches).
Place figures against the left margin, leaving space between the figure caption and the text.

5. Preferences, Symbols, and Units

Follow consistent style guidelines for references, units, and notations as specified.

6. Submission of Material to the Editor

Create a camera-ready copy PDF file and send it along with the MS Word file to the editor.
Ensure all figures are included as high-resolution images in the PDF.

Publishing Ethics, Malpractice, and Peer Review Policy

Publishing Ethics and Malpractice Statement

GreenThink is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics, research integrity, and transparent editorial decision-making. All stakeholders in the publication process (authors, editors, and reviewers) are expected to follow ethical principles consistent with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines and the publisher’s requirements for conference proceedings.

Integrity and accountability
The proceedings editorial team is responsible for ensuring that submissions are evaluated fairly, consistently, and transparently. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, relevance to the conference scope, and compliance with ethical standards. The editorial team takes reasonable steps to identify and address ethical concerns, including suspected misconduct and compromised peer review.

Authorship and contributorship
All listed authors must have made a meaningful scholarly contribution and must take responsibility for the content. Any change to authorship after submission (addition, removal, or re-ordering of authors) must be requested in writing, justified, and approved by the proceedings editors. Guest, gift, or ghost authorship is not permitted.

Conflicts of interest
Authors, editors, and reviewers must disclose any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest that could reasonably be perceived to influence the work or its evaluation. If a conflict of interest is identified, the individual will be recused from the editorial or review process and replaced as appropriate.

Originality, plagiarism, and permissions
All submissions must be original and properly cite relevant prior work. Manuscripts may be screened using similarity-checking software prior to peer review. Similarity reports are interpreted in context (for example, quotations, methods, and reference lists may legitimately increase similarity). Submissions that show concerning overlap, inadequate attribution, or unpermitted reuse of copyrighted content may be rejected or returned for correction. Authors are responsible for securing permission to reproduce figures, tables, or substantial third-party material.

Use of Generative AI tools
Authors remain fully accountable for the originality, validity, and integrity of their work. Any use of Generative AI tools must be transparently disclosed in the manuscript, including the tool name and how it was used. Generative AI tools must not be listed as authors. Editors and reviewers must not upload or share unpublished manuscripts (or parts of them) with Generative AI tools or other external services that could compromise confidentiality or intellectual property.

Research involving humans and vulnerable groups
For studies involving human participants (including children), authors must comply with applicable ethics approval requirements, informed consent procedures, and privacy or data-protection obligations. Identifiable participant information must only be included when ethically justified and appropriately consented.

Misconduct, investigations, and post-publication action
If there are concerns about plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, manipulated content, paper-mill activity, authorship irregularities, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or compromised peer review, the proceedings editors may initiate an investigation and request supporting information (for example, raw data, ethics approval evidence, or authorship clarification). Confirmed misconduct may result in rejection, withdrawal from the proceedings, notification to relevant parties, and post-publication actions such as corrections or retractions where necessary.

Complaints and appeals
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe a decision was based on a factual misunderstanding or procedural error. Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent member of the Scientific Committee who was not involved in the original decision. Ethical complaints will be handled confidentially and in line with recognized publication ethics guidance.

Peer Review and Acceptance:

The conference follows a rigorous double-blind peer-review process.
Manuscripts are evaluated by the proceedings editor for relevance to the summit’s focus.
Independent international experts review accepted papers to assess their suitability for presentation.
The selective acceptance rate is 70%.

Peer Review Process

Plagiarism Check Process:

Pre-Review Screening: Upon submission, each paper is subjected to a preliminary plagiarism scan using advanced plagiarism detection software. This initial check helps in identifying any significant issues of similarity with previously published work.
Software and Tools: We utilize reputable plagiarism detection tools such as Turnitin or iThenticate, which are widely recognized for their efficiency and accuracy in scanning academic and research documents against an extensive database of published material.
Similarity Index: The plagiarism report generated by the detection software provides a similarity index, which is a percentage of the text in the submission that matches existing sources. This index helps in assessing the level of originality of the paper.
Maximum Allowed Similarity Percentage: We have set a maximum allowed similarity index of 15%. This threshold is designed to account for common phrases, technical terms, and bibliographic references, which are naturally expected to have some level of similarity with existing literature. It’s important to note that the similarity index is considered in the context of the entire document, and a higher percentage of similarity does not automatically imply plagiarism. Each case is evaluated individually, considering the nature of the matched content and its significance within the document.
Handling High Similarity Scores: Submissions that exceed the maximum allowed similarity index undergo a more detailed review to determine the nature of the matched content. If significant portions of the paper are found to be inadequately original or improperly attributed, the submission may be rejected or returned to the authors for revision. In cases of minor issues, authors may be asked to revise the problematic sections and resubmit their paper.

Through this rigorous plagiarism check process, we aim to maintain the integrity and quality of the research presented at our summit, ensuring that all contributions are both original and respectful of intellectual property rights.

Peer Review Transparency Statement

This proceedings volume contains papers accepted through a structured editorial screening and peer review process organised by the GreenThink proceedings editorial team and Scientific Committee. Full papers are reviewed under a double-anonymous peer review model by at least two independent reviewers. The proceedings editors hold final responsibility for acceptance decisions and maintain records of peer review reports and editorial communications.

Peer Review and Acceptance Policy

All submissions to GreenThink are subject to peer review conducted by members of the Scientific Committee and/or independent reviewers appointed for this purpose. Peer review is conducted in accordance with recognized ethical standards for peer reviewers.

Review model
GreenThink applies a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process for full papers, where author and reviewer identities are concealed to reduce bias. For abstracts, the conference may apply editorial assessment and/or peer review using the same ethical principles.

Stage 1: Editorial screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the proceedings editorial team to confirm:

relevance to the conference scope and themes
compliance with formatting and submission requirements
basic academic structure and readability
completion of required declarations (for example, conflicts of interest and research ethics where applicable)
preliminary similarity screening status, when used

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum requirements may be returned to authors for correction or may be desk-rejected.

Stage 2: Peer review

Full papers are reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewers are selected from a pool that may include the Scientific Committee and the wider academic community.
If reviewer recommendations substantially diverge, the editors may invite an additional reviewer or seek an adjudicating opinion.

Reviewer selection and responsibilities
Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers are required to:

provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based feedback
maintain confidentiality and not share manuscripts or review content
disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary
alert the editors to suspected ethical issues (for example, plagiarism, fabricated content, or inappropriate citation pressure)

Decision outcomes
Possible outcomes include:

accept without revision
accept with minor revisions
major revisions required (revise and resubmit)
reject due to scientific inadequacy, ethical concerns, or lack of fit with conference themes

Revision and verification
Authors may be required to revise manuscripts in response to reviewer feedback. Revised manuscripts may be re-evaluated to ensure that reviewer comments are addressed and that the work meets conference and publication standards.

Final decision
The proceedings editorial board makes the final acceptance decision, taking into account reviewer reports, the conference scope, and publication standards. The editorial team maintains records of reviewer reports and editorial decisions to support transparency, quality assurance, and potential audits.

Acceptance Standards

A submission may be accepted for publication if it meets these minimum standards:

fits the scope and themes of the conference and proceedings
demonstrates sound reasoning and appropriate methodology is sufficiently original and properly referenced
meets language and presentation standards appropriate for an international readership
includes essential scholarly components (title, abstract, introduction, methods, findings or results, discussion, and references)
meets similarity and integrity checks as assessed by the editorial team

Call for Papers