CALL FOR PAPERS
The 3rd International Conference on
Society and Information Technologies: ICSIT 2012
The collocated with
The 18th International Conference on Information Systems Analysis and Synthesis: ISAS 2012
The 10th International Conference on Computing, Communications and Control Technologies: CCCT
March 25th - 28th, 2012– Orlando, Florida, USA
Honorary President: William Lesso
Program Committee Chairs: Friedrich Welsch
General Chairs: Jorge Baralt and Nagib Callaos
Organizing Committee Chairs: Angel Oropeza and José Vicente Carrasquero
Conference’s Major Themes Each regular session, included in the conference
program, will be associated to a corresponding virtual
Impact of Information and Communication session where all final versions of the articles to be
Technologies (ICT) on Societies presented will be displayed and authors can comment
them via electronic forums. Registered authors of
The Academic Sector and the ICT virtual participations will have access to all conference
The Private Sector and the ICT program sessions (and papers). Their article will be
The Public Sector and the ICT displayed as the regular ones. Virtual authors also
have the option of sending, besides the final version of
Program Committee their article in a PDF document, an electronic
The Program Committee has about 36 members, who presentation (PowerPoint, flash, etc. and/or a 15-20
are complemented by about 769 reviewers, from about minutes video)
85 countries. The names, affiliations and countries of
the PC’s members as well as the additional reviewers After paying the respective shipping and handling
could be found at the Conference’s web site, or more costs, registered authors of virtual participation, who
specifically at www.iiis2012.org/icsit/PCommitte.asp. have paid their registration fee, can get delivered the
same conference material that the regular attendees
Virtual Participation receive at the registration desk.
Given the Global Recession, and thinking of those
scholars, researchers and professionals related with the Ways of Participation and Support
conference topics but unable to attend it personally
(usually due to insufficient funding for the traveling Participation in the conference could be done by
costs) a Virtual Participation mode has been means of one or several of the following activities:
established, with the same peer reviewing and validity The submission of a paper/abstract.
than face-to-face ones. The organization of Invited Session(s)
Submissions made for Virtual Participation would go
through the same reviewing processes of the regular Tutorial proposals
papers (double-blind, non-blind, and participative peer The organization of Focus Symposium.
reviewing) and, if accepted (according to the same The reviewing process.
acceptance policy), they will be included in the The conference promotion.
proceedings and will be eligible for journal Recommending scholars/researchers in order to
publication, with no additional cost, if they are, have an active participation and/or submit the
according to their reviewers, among the best 10%-20% papers.
of those physically and virtually presented at the Panel Presentation.
as Academic/Scientific Co-Sponsors.
5. Tutorial or workshop presentation, which can
Kinds of Participants be proposed sending an email to
Participation of both, researchers and practitioners is firstname.lastname@example.org
strongly encouraged. Papers may be submitted on:
research in science and engineering, case studies
drawn on professional practice and consulting, and Three Kinds of Reviewing Processes
position papers based on large and rich experience Draft papers and abstracts will have three kinds of
gained through executive/managerial practices and reviewing: double-blind, non-blind and participatory
decision-making. Hence, the Program Committee has reviewing:
been conformed according to the criteria given above. 1. Each submission will be sent to at least three
reviewers, randomly selected, from the Program
Deadlines Committee’s members and from the additional
November 23rd, 2011: Submission of draft papers reviewers, for its double-blind reviewing.
(2000-5000), extended abstracts (600-2000) and 2. Draft papers and extended abstracts will also
abstracts for inter-disciplinary communication (300- have non-blind, open reviewing by means of 1-3
600 words) reviewers suggested by the submitting authors.
The author(s) of each submitted paper/abstract
November 23rd, 2011: Invited Sessions proposals.
should nominate at least one or two reviewers
Acceptance of invited session proposals will be done
(accordingly to the submission option selected),
in about one week of its proposal via the respective
and can nominate a maximum of three reviewers
conference web form, and final approval will be done
for the non-blind review of their respective
after the inclusion of at least five papers in the
3. Submissions will also be included in a
February 6th, 2012: Notifications of acceptance. Participative Peer-to-Peer Reviewing (PPPR).
February 20th, 2012: Submission of camera-ready Consequently, submissions will be posted,
or final versions of the accepted papers. without previous screening, in the conference
March 25th, 2012: Conference Starts web site in a way that it could be accessed,
March 28th, 2012: Conference Ends reviewed, commented and evaluated by the
authors who sent draft papers or abstracts in the
Some invited sessions might have a different timetable same area or topic. Authors will get a login and a
according to its organizer and chair, but in any case password in order to have this kind of access.
the camera ready deadline should be met. Details related to the Participative Peer-to-Peer
Reviewing (PPPR), as well as the reasoning
Types of Submissions Accepted supporting it can be found at
1. Papers/Abstracts http://www.iiis2012.org/icsit/Website/Pptpr.asp?
Research papers vc=29
a. in science
b. in engineering, including systems Acceptance of a submitted paper will be based on all
analysis, design, implementation, kinds of reviewing, but the first two (double-blind and
synthesis, deployment, maintenance, non-blind) will be necessary conditions for draft
etc. papers and extended abstracts.
Case studies The selection of the best 10%-20% papers, for their
Position papers publication in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics
Reports: technical reports, engineering and Informatics (JSCI), will also be done based on the
reports, reports on a methodological three kinds of reviewing.
application, etc. Several studies have shown the strength and the
2. Invited Sessions weaknesses of double-blind and non-blind methods of
Data regarding invited session to be organized by reviewing. Many editors and authors also addressed
the submitter (title of the invited session, name of this issue, some of whom have concluded that the
the organizer, affiliation, titles of the papers reviewing should be double blinded and some others
accepted for the invited session, authors’ names, reached the opposite conclusion. David Kaplan, a
etc.). More details could be found below or at the highly cited author for example, stated that to
conference web site. overcome the weaknesses of peer-reviewing and to fix
3. Panel Presentation and/or Round Table it “Review of a manuscript would be solicited from
Proposals. Panel or round table proposals can be colleagues by the authors. The first task of these
made using the web page related to invited reviewers would be to identify revisions that could be
sessions proposals. made to improve the manuscript. Second, the
4. Focus Symposia (which should include a reviewers would be responsible for writing an
minimum of 15 papers). Focus symposia evaluation of the revised work.” (Kaplan D., 2005,
proposals can be made using the web page related “How to Fix Peer Review”, The Scientist, Volume 19,
to invited sessions proposals. Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6. Also in
www.scienceboard.org/community/perspectives.142.h inclusion in the conference proceedings, in their hard
tml copy and CD versions. This kind of submissions will
be reviewed by a Modified Kaplan's Method, where
Since both of these reviewing methods are opposites the submission's author should suggest at least two
without contradiction between them, both methods can scholars, researchers and/or professionals for the
be used in a way as to complement one another, open, non-blind review of his/her paper. Each paper
getting their advantages and reducing their respective will also be sent to at least 3 reviewers for its double-
disadvantages. This is the aim of ICSIT 2012’s blind review as well. Acceptance decisions will be
Organizing Committee while choosing to combine based on both kinds of reviews: Non-blind and
both of them in the reviewing process of the papers double-blind ones. [David Kaplan’s article titled
that are submitted to the conference. “How to fix Peer Review” (The Scientist, Volume 19,
Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6, 2005) can also be accessed at
A Multi-Methodological Approach for http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives.
Reviewing Submissions sent to a Multi- and 142.html
Inter-Disciplinary Conference FB. Extended abstracts (600-2000 words, not a full
Considering the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of paper) submitted for presentation at the conference
ICSIT 2011 and the fact that there are different kinds and for inclusion in the conference proceedings, in
of epistemological values, disciplinary rigors, their hard copy and CD versions. Authors submitting
reviewing standards, and conference organizational Extended Abstracts should suggest at least one
models, the ICSIT 2012's Organizing Committee scholar, researcher, or professional for the open, non-
considered as highly desirable to have different kinds blind review of his/her abstract. Each extended
of submissions to the conference with different abstract will also be sent to at least three reviewers for
methods of their respective reviewing. Accordingly, its double-blind reviewing as well. Acceptance
submissions of draft papers will be differentiated from decisions will be based on both kinds of reviewing:
abstracts' submissions. Each kind of submission will Non-blind and double-blind ones. "The submission
have two different reviewing methods as well. should contain a scholar [or a professional]
Consequently, authors will have the opportunity to exposition of ideas, techniques, and results,
choose the way of submitting their paper that best fits including motivation and a clear comparison with
their disciplinary rigor and their organization's related work." (as it is indicated for submissions to
requirements with regards to the conference be made to the Annual IEEE Symposia on
organizational model. In any kind of submission Foundations of Computer Science: FOCS).
authors should clearly indicate the contribution
made by them. FC. Abstracts, written for Inter-Disciplinary
Accordingly, there will be different reviewing Communication (300-600 words), may be submitted
methods, going from the most formal one, to less for presentation at the conference and for inclusion in
formal methods followed by those who conceive the the conference proceedings, in their hard copy and CD
knowledge communication made through conferences versions. The purpose the Organizing Committee
as a more informal process. Consequently, authors seeks by allowing this kind of submissions is to foster
will have different ways of making their submissions, communications among different knowledge domains,
and these ways will be highly related to different different disciplines, and different kinds of
conference organizational models followed by experiences, as for example between academic and
prestigious scholar societies or suggested by highly corporate knowledge/experience. Authors submitting
cited authors. abstracts for Inter-Disciplinary Communication should
Three kinds of reviewing processes will be applied to write both, the abstract and the full paper in a way as
submissions made for their (face-to-face or virtual) to be understood by scholars from other disciplines,
presentation at the conference and their inclusion in i.e. they should be written in non-technical, non-
the hard copy and CD version of the conference disciplinary terms, and should clearly state the
proceedings. These three kinds are: 1) double-blinded contributions the authors are making in their
reviews; 2) open, non-blind reviews; and 3) respective disciplinary or interdisciplinary field,
participative peer-to-peer reviews by authors who and/or the potential impact of the article’s content in
made submissions to the same topic or area in the other disciplines. Analogical thinking is suggested for
conference. these articles as complement of the usual logical-
disciplinary one. Consequently, this kind of articles
Types of submissions accepted may contain inter-disciplinary analogies, expressional
Authors have there are 3 submission options to be metaphors, analogical inferences, communicational
considered for face-to-face presentations and 3 similar analogies, analogy-based hypothesis formulations,
options for submissions to be considered for virtual design proposals, etc.
presentations. These options are the following:
Authors submitting Abstracts may suggest 1-3
scholars, researchers, or professionals for open, non-
FA. Full Draft papers (2000-5000 words) submitted blind reviewing of their respective abstract. Each
for their presentation at the conference and for abstract will also be sent to at least three reviewers for
its double-blind reviewing as well. Acceptance for Inter-Disciplinary Communication should write
decisions will be based on both kinds of reviewing: both, the abstract and the full paper in a way as to be
non-blind and double-blind. The submission should be understood by scholars from other disciplines, i.e. they
similar to the abstracts or introductions usually written should be written in non-technical, non-disciplinary
at the beginning of a full paper, containing “a terms, and should clearly state the contributions the
scholarly [or a professional] exposition of ideas, authors are making in their respective disciplinary or
techniques, and results, including motivation and a interdisciplinary field, and/or the potential impact of
clear comparison with related work” (as it is indicated the article’s content in other disciplines. Analogical
for submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE thinking is suggested for these articles as complement
Symposia on Foundations of Computer Science: of the usual logical-disciplinary one. Consequently,
FOCS). this kind of articles may contain inter-disciplinary
analogies, expressional metaphors, analogical
VA. Full Draft papers (2000-5000 words) submitted inferences, communicational analogies, analogy-based
for Virtual Participation at the conference and for hypothesis formulations, design proposals, etc.
inclusion in the conference proceedings, in their hard
copy and CD versions. Similarly to the face-to-face Acceptance policy
option above (indicated as FA), “this kind of The acceptance policy which is usually applied to the
submissions will be reviewed by a Modified Kaplan's submissions made to ICSIT, the symposia organized
Method, where the submission's author should in its context, the collocated Conferences and other
suggest at least two scholars, researchers and/or conferences organized by the International Institute of
professionals for the open, non-blind review of Informatics and Systemics (IIIS), is oriented by:
his/her paper. Each paper will also be sent to at least 3 A. The majority rule, when there is no agreement
reviewers for its double-blind review as well. among the reviewers with regards to acceptance
Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of or non-acceptance, of a given submission.
reviews: Non-blind and double-blind ones. [David B. The non-acceptance of the submission when there
Kaplan’s article titled “How to fix Peer Review” (The is agreement among its reviewers for not
Scientist, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6, 2005) accepting it.
can also be accessed at C. Acceptance of the paper when in doubt (a draw
http://www.scienceboard.net/community/perspectives. or a tie among the opinions of the reviewers, for
142.html ]” example).
The reasoning that is supporting this acceptance policy
is based on very well established facts:
VB. Extended abstracts (600-2000 words, not a full
There usually is a low level agreement among
paper) submitted for Virtual Participation at the
conference and for inclusion in the conference
proceedings, in their hard copy and CD versions. A significant probability of refusing high quality
Similarly to the face-to-face option above (indicated papers when the acceptance policy is oriented in
as FB), “authors submitting Extended Abstracts such a way as to just accept those papers with no
should suggest at least one scholar, researcher, or disagreement for their respective acceptance.
professional for the open, non-blind review of his/her The possible plagiarism (of some non-ethical
abstract. Each extended abstract will also be sent to at reviewer) of the content of non-accepted papers.
least three reviewers for its double-blind reviewing as Details regarding the reasoning supporting this
well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both acceptance policy are given in the conference web
kinds of reviewing: Non-blind and double-blind ones. site.
"The submission should contain a scholar [or a Submitted papers/abstracts will be sent to reviewers.
professional] exposition of ideas, techniques, and The best 10% of the papers will also be published in
results, including motivation and a clear the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics
comparison with related work" (as it is indicated for (JSCI). Acceptance decisions regarding papers
submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE Symposia presentation at the conference, and their respective
on Foundations of Computer Science: FOCS).” inclusion in the conference’s proceedings, will be
based on their content review and/or on the respective
VC. Abstracts, written for Inter-Disciplinary author’s CV. Invited papers will not be reviewed and
Communication (300-600 words), submitted for their acceptance decision will be based on the topic
Virtual Participation at the conference and their and the respective author’s CV. Some of these invited
inclusion in the conference proceedings, in for hard papers, if chosen by the session chair as the best paper
copy and CD versions. Similarly to the face-to-face of the session, might also be published by JSCI
option above (indicated as FC), “the purpose the Journal, because the 30% of sessions best papers will
Organizing Committee seeks by allowing this kind of also be published in the journal. All accepted papers,
submissions is to foster communications among which should not exceed six single-spaced typed
different knowledge domains, different disciplines, pages, will be published by means of paper and
and different kinds of experiences, as for example electronic proceedings.
between academic and corporate
knowledge/experience. Authors submitting abstracts
Reviewing of papers submitted to invited process to be made by the reviewers of the Journal of
session organizers Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI), for its
Organizers of invited sessions are autonomous with possible inclusion among the best 10%-20% papers
regards to the reviewing method to be used in the presented at the conference which will be selected and
reviewing process of the papers to be submitted to published in the JSCI, after doing possible
their respective sessions. They can use any of the modifications (in content/format) and extensions as to
methods described above, or some combination of adequate them to a journal publication.
Submission of Draft Papers and Abstracts
In some cases, like it is the case of Invited Papers, the Abstracts or draft papers should be submitted taking
CVs of the authors will also support the decision into account the following format:
regarding the acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the 1. Each submission should be related to at least one of
respective paper. the major themes, or the special symposia, given
Organizers of the best invited sessions or focus 2. Each submission should have a title.
symposia will co-edit the respective proceedings 3. Abstracts for interdisciplinary communications
volume, the CD version of the proceedings and might should have 300 to 600 words, extended abstracts
be invited to be invited editors or co-editors of the should have 600 to 2000 words and draft papers
JSCI Journal issue where their session or symposia should have 2000 to 5000 words, in English.
papers will be published. Multiple author books, or 4. Author(s) with names, addresses, telephone and fax
JSCI journal issues, might be published by IIIS, based numbers, and e-mail addresses should be included.
on the best-invited sessions, the best focus symposia 5. Each author making a submission should
or the best mini-conferences, and the topic of the necessarily suggest at least one or two (accordingly
papers. to the submission option selected) and a maximum
of three reviewers for the open review of the
Reviewers not meeting the reviewing deadline submitted extended abstract or paper draft,
If the reviewers selected for reviewing a given according to the acceptation policy stated above.
paper/abstract do not make their respective reviews
before the papers/abstracts acceptance deadline, the Abstracts or draft papers should be sent via the
selection committee may inform the respective author conference web site
about this fact. http://www.iiis2012.org/icsit/Submission.asp, filling
the respective form and uploading the respective paper
Reviewing of papers and abstract other than or abstract. If the conference web site is not accessible
research full papers for you, you can also make your submission by e-mail,
attaching it to the following e-mail address:
The reviewing process of abstracts, case studies,
position papers, reports, white papers, panel
presentations and round table proposals will be based
on the relevance of the topic, its potential for Conference Fees
The registration fee for IIIS' members
interdisciplinary communications, its educational
(http://www.iiis.org/iiis) will be $590 before their
value and/or its analogical thinking potential.
Camera Ready deadline and $640 after their Camera
Ready deadline. Additional $50 applies for non-
members of IIIS.
Papers to be included in the conference
proceedings Full-time students at academic institutions will have a
Accepted papers that have at least one of their authors discount of $100 off the registration fee indicated
with a confirmed registration status in the conference, above. This discount applies only to the registration
for face-to-face or virtual presentation, will be fee. To qualify for the discounted fee, students must
included in both versions of the conference provide, via fax or postal mail, an official certification
proceedings (hardcopy and CD). Papers received after issued by their university or institution verifying they
the respective deadline may be included in the post- are full-time students and a copy of their valid Student
conference proceedings volume. Any error that results ID card. Full-time students that register at the
in the non-inclusion of a paper that should have been conference must have both forms of verification with
included in the proceedings will be corrected them when they arrive at the registration desk.
including such a paper in the post-conference
Authors of papers accepted for their respective
Paper to be included, later, in the Journal presentation at ICSIT 2012, or any of the symposia
organized in its context or any of the collocated
conferences, may apply for a complimentary, free IIIS
Each accepted paper or presentation is candidate for
being a best paper of its respective session and,
consequently, it is candidate for a second reviewing
p?vc=29 after getting the acceptance e-mail related to The invitation is an academic, not a financial one,
the presentation of their paper and before making their because, unfortunately, we have no financial sponsor
registration in the conference, so they can register with and the conference should self-finance itself.
the reduced fee. Consequently, we cannot make any financial
Each registration fee entitles the publication and
Invited sessions and symposia organizers with the best
presentation of one paper of up to 6 pages. The
performance will be co-editors of the proceedings
registered author may include one additional paper (of
volume where their session or symposia paper were
up to 6 pages and authored by him/her) at an extra
charge of $300. The additional paper must be authored
and presented by the registered author.
Chairs of invited sessions will select the best paper
presented at their session. Sessions’ best papers will
If two or more authors of the same paper attend the
be reviewed by reviewers of the Journal of Systemics,
conference, each of them must pay his/her respective
Cybernetics, and Informatics (JSCI) in order to select
registration fee in full.
the best 30% of them for their respective publications
in the Journal.
There is a limit of 6 pages for each paper in the
Proceedings. At most 2 additional pages can be
Best invited sessions and symposia organizers are
included, as long as the registered author pays the fee
candidates for invited editors or co-editors of the JSCI
of US$ 75.00 per extra page.
Journal special issue related to their field of research
This fee will include exclusively:
• A CD-ROM version of the proceedings
Details with regards to the role of invited session
• One volume of the hard copy version of the
organizers and to suggested steps that they might
conference proceedings. (If you are an author, you
make in organizing their respective sessions are given
will receive the volume in which your paper was
in the conference web site.
• Coffee breaks
• Welcome Reception Guidelines for Reviewers (and authors)
The Golden Rule “Treat others as you would like to
Any other expenses must be afforded by the be treated”, apply very well for the most general and
participants. essential guidelines for reviewers. Siegelman (1988)
The registration fee does not include any post- adapted this golden rule of the Ethics of Reciprocity in
conference services. There will be additional shipping what might be called the Golden Rule of Reviewing.
and handling costs to be paid by those registered He stated “Referee manuscript as you would like to
authors who, for unforeseen reasons, cannot attend have your own papers treated” (Siegelman, advice to
ICSIT 2012 and will ask us to send them the authors. Radiology 1988; 166:278-280; in Weller,
proceedings after the conference. Any other post- 2002, Editorial Peer Review, its Strength and
conference administrative requirements will be Weaknesses, Medford, New Jersey).
charged at a rate of US$20 per staff hour required to
elaborate such a requirement, with a minimum of "The Golden Rule" is an essential moral principle
US$10. Post-conference requirements will have their found in almost all major religious and cultures. It has
own deadline, which, in no case, will be more than been conceived as the most essential basis for the
four (4) months counted from the last day of the modern concept of human right. Principal
conference. philosophers and religious figures have stated it in
different ways. At
example, versions of the Golden Rule in 21 world
religious are quoted. Analogously we might conceive
Invited sessions’ organizers are autonomous in the Siegelman’s Reviewing Golden Rule as an essential
promotion of their respective session as well as in rule that can be applied to virtually all reviewing
collecting, reviewing and selecting the papers to be processes and methods in spite of their high diversity
presented at their respective sessions. and the variety of their ends and means.
To be more specific, with regards to some guidelines
An invited session organizer has a similar role to the for reviewers, would depend on the objectives sought
invited editor in a journal, i.e. he or she is invited to by the reviewing process and on its inherent
identify and look for high quality papers, to review the limitations and restrictions. Different editorial
papers of his, or her, session, to select the reviewers objectives, for example, would probably originate
that will help him, or her, and to decide which papers different guidelines. Different disciplines with
he/she wants to be presented at respective invited possibly different epistemological values would also
session. probably require different guidelines. Journal
reviewing might have different guidelines to the 6. Significance: Importance and noteworthiness of
reviewing required by conferences presentations or the ideas, methods and techniques used and/or
proceedings publications. Scientific research papers described in the article. The problem approached
would probably have different guidelines than those in the article should be interesting and natural,
recommended for papers of case studies, work in and not just be chosen by the authors because it
progress, experience-based reflections, industrial can be attacked by their methods. What it is
innovations, analogical thinking, etc. presented in the article is not just obvious and
One way of dealing with the inherent diversity of
disciplines and kinds of papers in a multi-disciplinary 7. Quality: Scientific, technical, and/or
context is to ask the reviewers (beside their methodological soundness of the article.
constructive feedback oriented to improve the paper, Correctness of results, proofs and/or reflections.
their reasoned recommendation for accepting/rejecting Inclusion in the articles of details that allow
the paper) to rate the paper according different criteria checking the correctness of the results or citations
established by the respective editor or the respective of articles where can be found the proof or parts
conference’s chair or organizers. The weights of these of it.
criteria would depend on the kind of article submitted
and on the nature and the objectives of the 8. Presentation: Adequate organization of the
corresponding Journal or the conference. article and the language used in it, as to make its
content clear, easily readable and understandable.
Consequently, in multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary Clarity in what has been achieved by the author
contexts, especially in those oriented to forums of the article. Even technical papers on a narrow
integrated by the academic, industrial and public topic should be written such that non-experts can
sectors, we recommend the reviewers to rate the comprehend the main contribution of the paper
article being reviewed according the following and the methods employed. The paper shouldn't
criteria: just be a litany of deep but obscure theorems. The
information of the paper should be available to
1. Originality: Not known or experienced before. A the reader with a minimum of effort.
technique or a method not used before. Has this
or similar work been previously reported? Are Audiovisual Equipment
the problems and/or approaches in the paper The audiovisual equipment provided for most
completely new? meetings will be a screen, LCD Projector, and a
laptop. Any other equipment, if needed, will have to
2. Novelty: According this criterion, it is not be supplied by the presenter.
necessary for the paper to develop new
techniques, or to generate new knowledge, but it Conference Contacts
should, at least, apply, or combine, them in a Phone: +58 (212) 232-7062
fresh and novel way or shed some new light on Fax: + (407) 656-3516
their applicability in a certain domain. Conference Secretariat: email@example.com.
3. Innovation: A new product, process or service More details can be found at the Conference web
based on new or known technologies, methods or page: http://www.iiis2012.org/icsit . Answers to
methodologies. Known technologies and specific questions can also be requested by e-mail.
techniques might be combined to generate new
product or service with potential users in the
market. What defines an innovation is a new kind
of possible users of a product or a service, not
necessarily new knowledge, new techniques, new
technologies, new methods, or new applications.
Innovation is related to new uses or new markets.
4. Relevance: Importance, usefulness, and/or
applicability of the ideas, methods and/or
techniques described in the paper.
5. Appropriateness: Suitability, agreeableness,
compatibility, congruity, and adequacy of the
paper to the areas and topics of the journal or the
conference. Would the article perhaps better be
presented at another conference?