Considering the multi- and inter-disciplinary nature of EISTA 2025 and the fact that there are different kinds of epistemological values, disciplinary rigors, reviewing standards, and conference organizational models, the EISTA 2025's Organizing Committee considered as highly desirable to have different kinds of submissions to the conference with different methods of their respective reviewing. Accordingly, submissions of draft papers will be differentiated from abstracts' submissions. Each kind of submission will have two different reviewing methods as well. Consequently, authors will have the opportunity to choose the way of submitting their paper that best fits their disciplinary rigor and their organization's requirements with regards to the conference organizational model. In any kind of submission authors should clearly indicate the contribution made by them.

Accordingly, there will be different reviewing methods, going from the most formal one, to less formal methods followed by those who conceive the knowledge communication made through conferences as a more informal process. Consequently, authors will have different ways of making their submissions, and these ways will be highly related to different conference organizational models followed by prestigious scholar societies or suggested by highly cited authors.

Three kinds of reviewing processes will be applied to submissions made for their presentation at the conference and their inclusion in the conference proceedings. These three kinds are: 1) double-blinded reviews; 2) open, non-blind reviews; and 3) participative peer-to-peer reviews by authors who made submissions to the same topic or area in the conference.

Virtual Participation

Thinking of those scholars, researchers and professionals related with the conference topics but unable to attend it personally (usually due to insufficient funding for the traveling costs) a Virtual Participation mode has been established, with the same peer reviewing and validity than face-to-face ones.

Submissions made for Virtual Participation will go trought the same reviewing processes of the regular papers (double-blind, non-blind, and participative peer reviewing) and, if accepted (according to the same acceptance policy), they will be included in the proceedings and will be eligible for journal publication, with no additional cost, if they are, according to their reviewers, among the best 25%-30% of those physically and virtually presented at the conference.

Each regular session, included in the conference program, will be associated to a corresponding virtual session where all final versions of the articles to be presented will be displayed and authors can comment them via electronic forums. Registered authors of virtual participations will have access to all conference program sessions (and papers).

Their article will be displayed as the regular ones. Virtual authors also have the option of sending, besides the final version of their article in a PDF document, an electronic presentation (PowerPoint, flash, etc. and/or a 15-20 minutes video).

After paying the respective shipping and handling costs, registered authors of virtual participation, who have paid their registration fee, can get delivered the same conference material that the regular attendees receive at the registration desk. Registration fee is the same for face-to-face and virtual participation.

Submission Options

There are three submission options for face-to-face participation, and three corresponding options for virtual participation. These options are the following (and are explained in more detail below):

Authors should fulfill certain requirements for each of these five options as indicated below:

FA. Full Draft papers (2000-5000 words) submitted for their presentation at the conference and for inclusion in the conference proceedings. This kind of submissions will be reviewed by a Modified Kaplan's Method, where the submission's author should suggest at least two scholars (and up to three), researchers and/or professionals for the open, non-blind review of his/her paper. Each paper will also be sent to at least 3 reviewers for its double-blind review as well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of reviews: Non-blind and double-blind ones. [David Kaplan's article titled "How to fix Peer Review" (The Scientist, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6, 2005) can also be accessed at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16474/title/How-to-Fix-Peer-Review]

FB. Extended abstracts (600-2000 words, not a full paper) submitted for presentation at the conference and for inclusion in the conference proceedings. Authors submitting Extended Abstracts should suggest at least one scholar, researcher, or professional for the open, non-blind review of his/her abstract. Each extended abstract will also be sent to at least one (and up to 3) reviewers for its double-blind reviewing as well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of reviewing: Non-blind and double-blind ones. "The submission should contain a scholar [or a professional] exposition of ideas, techniques, and results, including motivation and a clear comparison with related work." (as it is indicated for submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE Symposia on Foundations of Computer Science: FOCS).

FC. Abstracts, written for Inter-Disciplinary Communication (300-600 words), may be submitted for presentation at the conference and for inclusion in the conference proceedings. The purpose the Organizing Committee seeks by allowing this kind of submissions is to foster communications among different knowledge domains, different disciplines, and different kinds of experiences, as for example between academic and corporate knowledge/experience. Authors submitting abstracts for Inter-Disciplinary Communication should write both, the abstract and the full paper in a way as to be understood by scholars from other disciplines, i.e. they should be written in non-technical, non-disciplinary terms, and should clearly state the contributions the authors are making in their respective disciplinary or interdisciplinary field, and/or the potential impact of the article's content in other disciplines. Analogical thinking is suggested for these articles as complement of the usual logical-disciplinary one. Consequently, this kind of articles may contain inter-disciplinary analogies, expressional metaphors, analogical inferences, communicational analogies, analogy-based hypothesis formulations, design proposals, etc.

Authors submitting Abstracts may suggest up to 3 scholars, researchers, or professionals for open, non-blind reviewing of their respective abstract. Each abstract will also be sent to at least three reviewers for its double-blind reviewing as well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of reviewing: non-blind and double-blind. The submission should be similar to the abstracts or introductions usually written at the beginning of a full paper, containing "a scholarly [or a professional] exposition of ideas, techniques, and results, including motivation and a clear comparison with related work" (as it is indicated for submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE Symposia on Foundations of Computer Science: FOCS).

VA. Full Draft papers (2000-5000 words) submitted for Virtual Participation at the conference and for inclusion in the conference proceedings. Similarly to the face-to-face option above (indicated as FA), "this kind of submissions will be reviewed by a Modified Kaplan's Method, where the submission's author should suggest at least two scholars (and up to three), researchers and/or professionals for the open, non-blind review of his/her paper. Each paper will also be sent to at least 3 reviewers for its double-blind review as well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of reviews: Non-blind and double-blind ones. [David Kaplan's article titled "How to fix Peer Review" (The Scientist, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6, 2005) can also be accessed at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16474/title/How-to-Fix-Peer-Review]

VB. Extended abstracts (600-2000 words, not a full paper) submitted for Virtual Participation at the conference and for inclusion in the conference proceedings. Similarly to the face-to-face option above (indicated as FB), "authors submitting Extended Abstracts should suggest at least one scholar (and up to 3), researcher, or professional for the open, non-blind review of his/her abstract. Each extended abstract will also be sent to at least three reviewers for its double-blind reviewing as well. Acceptance decisions will be based on both kinds of reviewing: Non-blind and double-blind ones. "The submission should contain a scholar [or a professional] exposition of ideas, techniques, and results, including motivation and a clear comparison with related work" (as it is indicated for submissions to be made to the Annual IEEE Symposia on Foundations of Computer Science: FOCS)."