EEEIC Review process is DOUBLE-BLINDED:

Both reviewers and authors are unaware of each others’ identities and affiliations.

*Advice: Common sense and careful writing can easily preserve anonymity without detracting from the submission. To make your submission double-blind, do not reveal the identity of any author in the text. For example, do not include author names, funding sources, or personal acknowledgments. Do not eliminate essential self-references or other references. If you have a concurrent related submission, reference it as follows: ”Closely related, concurrently submitted work shows how to use this pointer analysis for testing [Anonymous 2007].” with the corresponding citation: “[Anonymous 2007] Under submission. Details omitted for double-blind reviewing.”

All submissions must be electronic in PDF format and must follow the two-column format of IEEE Conference Proceedings and A4 paper size (please do not use US letter paper size). When converting to PDF please assure that all fonts are embedded and subsetted (more information).

Download Conference Template →

Authors are requested to use the style files available below. The maximum length of a manuscript is six (6) pages.  Over-length page fee is EUR 50 per page.

For your final paper, please use special conference templates  (page size must be A4  and NOT USLetter)


Once a abstract/paper is submitted to EEEIC submission system , the review process starts, as follows:

1. Anti-Plagiarism Screening
We  conduct the first review of the submitted papers to ensure that all papers are clear, authentic and relevant to the conference material. Details about plagiarism you can find in the attached IEEE Presentation. We  submit all papers to the Plagiarism Scanner:

2. Expert Review
Every abstract submitted to EEEIC conference is sent to at least four reviewers that include members of the Program Committee and additional qualified sub-reviewers.
3. Review
Each paper is reviewed by at least three reviewers. After the paper has been reviewed, the conference chairs examine the paper and the reviewers’ comments. Then the conference chair makes the final decision on each paper.
Once the paper reviewed, every author will be able to view the reviewers’ comments. The author will learn the paper’s average scores on originality, contribution to the scientific community, use of references, presentation of ideas, language level, and other relevant informations.
4. Paper Approval
Acceptance of the paper is based on the relevance, originality, technical soundness, presentation, references, and scientific merit of the paper. The conference chair makes the final decision on the acceptance or rejection of the paper. If the Author does not agree with the decision he can make appeal – during so-called “rebuttal phase”.


* Editorial: Improving Publication Quality by Reducing Bias with  Double-Blind Reviewing and Author Response; Kathryn S McKinley, The University of Texas at Austin ; ACM SIGPLAN Notices, 43(8):5–9, August 2008.

In case of difficulties the authors can contact