Requirements for Papers
Authors submitting papers should adhere to the following guidelines:
General Structure

1. Front Matter: Includes the Title, Author list, Affiliations, Abstract, and Keywords.
2. Main Sections:

• Research Manuscripts: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, Discussion, and optional Conclusions.
• Meeting Reports: Front matter, report text, and back matter.
• Case Reports: Introduction (general condition), Case Presentation (symptoms, diagnosis, treatment, outcome), Discussion (context and treatment decisions), and Conclusion (key lessons learned).
• Back Matter: Supplementary Materials, Acknowledgments, Author Contributions, Conflicts of Interest, References.

Formatting Guidelines

• Use SI Units; convert non-SI units where applicable.
• Define acronyms/abbreviations/initialisms when first introduced in the abstract, main text, and figures/tables.
• Equations must be editable using Microsoft Equation Editor or MathType.

Research Data and Supplementary Materials

• Authors must make all materials, data, and protocols available to readers unless restrictions are disclosed during submission.

Preregistration

• Provide links to preregistered studies or analysis plans if applicable.
• These requirements ensure clarity, consistency, and compliance with publication standards.

To ensure the scientific quality, originality, and relevance of the conference proceedings, all submitted papers will undergo a rigorous peer review process

1. All submitted manuscripts will first undergo an editorial screening by the Guest Editors and/or members of the Programme Committee. The screening will assess the paper’s relevance to the conference scope, originality, scientific and technical quality, ethical compliance, and conformity with the submission requirements.
Manuscripts that are outside the scope of the conference, do not meet basic scientific or ethical standards, or fail to comply with the submission requirements may be rejected without external review.

2. Each manuscript selected for peer review will be evaluated by at least two independent referees with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.
Reviewers will be selected on the basis of their scientific competence and absence of conflicts of interest. They will be expected to provide an objective and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript.

3. Reviewers will evaluate manuscripts with particular attention to:

• Originality and Novelty: the manuscript should present original research and provide a meaningful contribution to computer science, information processing, computational methods, or related areas.
• Scientific and Technical Quality: the research methodology, algorithms, computational methods, experiments, models, or theoretical results should be technically sound and adequately justified.
• Relevance to the Conference Scope: the manuscript should clearly relate to the scientific themes of MIP Computing 2026 and the scope of the proposed proceedings.
• Quality and Reproducibility of Results: conclusions should be supported by appropriate analysis, experiments, simulations, datasets, or theoretical arguments, where applicable.
• Clarity of Presentation: the manuscript should be logically structured, clearly written, and supported by appropriate figures, tables, references, and technical documentation.
• Significance and Interest: the results should be relevant to researchers and practitioners working in information processing, computing, artificial intelligence, data analysis, intelligent systems, scientific computing, and related fields.

4. Authors may be required to revise their manuscripts in response to reviewers’ comments.
Revised manuscripts should clearly address the reviewers’ recommendations and provide an appropriate response to the issues raised during peer review. Where necessary, revised papers may be returned to the original reviewers or additional reviewers for further assessment.

5. The final decision on each manuscript will be made by the Guest Editors and the Programme Committee on the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the scientific quality of the manuscript, its relevance to the proceedings, and the adequacy of any required revisions.
Possible editorial decisions may include acceptance, revision, or rejection.
Reviewer recommendations will inform the editorial decision but will not automatically determine the final outcome.

6. Submitted manuscripts must represent original work and must not have been published previously or be under consideration for publication elsewhere in the same form.
All sources and previously published material must be properly acknowledged and cited.
Conflicts of interest must be disclosed by reviewers and editors, and manuscripts must be evaluated objectively and confidentially.

7. Reviewers must treat submitted manuscripts and all related materials as confidential.
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, technically substantiated, and timely reports. Information obtained through the peer review process must not be disclosed or used for personal or professional advantage.