Submission Methos
Paper Format: Authors must prepare their papers using Microsoft Word according to the provided guidelines and templates and then convert the files to PDF format. Submissions must be self-contained. Authors are required to submit their electronic papers in Word and PDF formats. Papers will be accepted in English only.
Submissions to DAI 2026 should report significant, original, and previously unpublished results on any aspect of data science, advanced algorithms, and intelligent computing. Papers addressing AI research problems, techniques for mechatronics and automation domains, and research that crosses disciplinary boundaries within computer science and mechatronics are especially encouraged. The DAI 2026 review process aims to provide authors with constructive feedback on their papers, even when a submission is rejected. All submissions will be subject to a double-blind peer-review process conducted by experts with extensive experience in the relevant field. Accepted papers must be revised according to the referees’ comments and suggestions before inclusion in the conference proceedings.
Dual Submissions: DAI 2026 will not accept any paper that, at the time of submission, is under review for, has already been published in, or has already been accepted for publication in a journal or another venue with formally published proceedings. As a guideline, authors should regard publications with a DOI, ISBN, or ISSN as formal publications. Questions about submission eligibility should be referred to the program chair before the submission deadline. Authors are also required not to submit their papers to venues with formally published proceedings during the DAI 2026 review period. These restrictions do not apply to workshops and similar specialized presentations with a limited audience and without published proceedings.
For each accepted paper, at least one author must attend the conference and present the paper. Authors of all accepted papers must prepare a final version for publication and present their work at the conference, either through a poster presentation or a short video/live oral presentation.
Presentation Instructions
1. The submitted abstract should provide a clear summary of the paper, outlining its goals, results, and conclusions, and should be understandable when read independently of the full paper.
2. If the full paper is ready, authors may submit the full paper directly without submitting an abstract.
Each presentation slot is 15 minutes. Authors are advised to plan for about 12 minutes of presentation followed by approximately 3 minutes for questions from the audience and committee members.
Authors should prepare their oral presentations to convey their message clearly and effectively, including providing an outline of the key ideas, methods, and results. More detailed discussions can continue during the breaks.
For Microsoft PowerPoint presentations, please use one of the following versions: PowerPoint 97–2003 (*.ppt) or PowerPoint 2007/2010 to ensure compatibility with the conference PC.
During the poster session, at least one author is expected to stand by the poster for most of the session to present the work and answer questions.
Peer Review
Peer Review Process Overview
The proceedings adhere to a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure academic quality and ethical standards. Key steps are outlined below:
1. Manuscript Allocation: Within one week after submission, the Editor-in-Chief assigns each manuscript to two to three independent reviewers with expertise aligned with the paper’s topic. Reviewers must declare no conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations, institutional affiliations, or financial ties with authors) prior to participation.
2. Initial Screening (1 week): Reviewers conduct a preliminary check for compliance with formatting guidelines, structural completeness (abstract, methods, results, etc.), and thematic relevance. Manuscripts that fail to meet basic standards may be desk-rejected, with detailed feedback provided to authors.
3. In-Depth Evaluation (3 weeks): Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, methodological validity, data integrity, and contribution to the field. Evaluations include:
-
A categorical rating (Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject)
-
Constructive comments for improvement
-
A confidential recommendation to the Editor
4. Decision-Making and Conflict Resolution: The Editor consolidates reviews and resolves discrepancies through panel discussions. Final decisions prioritize both scholarly rigor and a target acceptance rate of 40%, balancing selectivity with support for emerging research. Borderline manuscripts may undergo additional review or statistical validation.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive a decision within one week after the completion of the review, including anonymized reviewer comments. Accepted manuscripts proceed to production; others may be invited to resubmit after revision within a two-month revision window.
6. Revisions and Appeals: Revised manuscripts are re-evaluated within two weeks. Authors may appeal decisions with a point-by-point rebuttal, which triggers an independent audit by the Editorial Board.
Reviewer Criteria
Reviewers are typically asked to evaluate papers based on several criteria:
-
Originality and Innovation: Does the paper present new ideas, methodologies, or findings? Does it contribute to the advancement of the field?
-
Technical Soundness: Are the methods sound and appropriate, the analysis rigorous, and the results well-supported by the data?
-
Relevance to the Conference: Does the paper fit within the scope of the conference themes and tracks?
-
Clarity and Organization: Is the paper well-organized, with clear arguments and structure? Are the ideas presented clearly and coherently?
-
Literature Review and References: Does the paper engage appropriately with existing literature and demonstrate a clear understanding of the state of the field?
-
Ethical Considerations: Does the research adhere to ethical standards, especially in areas such as data privacy or human subjects?
-
Practical Implications: For applied research, reviewers assess the potential practical impact or applications of the findings.
-
Each of these criteria is typically scored on a numerical scale (e.g., 1–5), and reviewers are asked to provide detailed feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Ethics & Transparency
-
COPE Compliance: All participants follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines.
-
Gender and Geographic Inclusion: Reviewers assess whether gender, race, and geographic factors are appropriately considered.
-
Diversity Auditors: Two committee members serve as diversity auditors, monitoring the demographic balance in accepted papers on a quarterly basis.
-
AI Usage: AI tools (e.g., plagiarism detection, statistical error flags) assist but never replace human judgment.