Dates and Guidelines

Timeline and organisation

A two-stage selection process is to apply:

  • Oct 1, 2017: Abstract submission (approx. 200 words), abstracts not reviewed but checked whether they are in scope
  • Oct 15, 2017: Notification of whether the abstract is in scope combined with the invitation to submit the full conference paper
  • Dec 15, 2017: Paper submission (max. 10 pages), double blind full paper review according to scientific standards
  • Jan 15, 2018: Reviews out
  • March 1, 2018: “Camera-ready” papers due (standard OCG format available)
  • April 25, 2018: Volume available
  • May 3-4, 2018: Conference


Please submit your abstracts/papers to

CEEeGov publishes original, peer-reviewed work that has not been published before. Submissions should follow a clear methodological framework, empirical work should be based on reproducible data and analysis. For our policy on plagiarism, ghost writing and duplicate publications, see the processes in

Formatting Rules & Copyright Transfer

Publication Ethics

We follow the COPE Code of Conduct for Journal Editors, wherever applicable to conference publications to ensure the hightest standards of publication ethics and avoidance of malpractice. For details of the Code of Conduct, see

Guidelines for Reviews

  1. Reviews are to ensure the pertinence and scientific quality of the proceedings volume and the conference presentations; they evaluate the importance, originality and clarity of the paper, the validity of the methods used and the paper’s relevance to the conference.
  2. Reviews are managed by one member of the organising committee (currently Prof. Müller-Török, HVF Ludwigsburg, Mueller-Toeroek//; the pool of reviewers are the members of the programme committee. Reviewers are selected according to the topics and fields within the scope of the conference and the general principle to spread the work load evenly among programme committee members. The committee covers the scope of the conference in its broadest sense and ensures availability of suitable reviewers for virtually any topic within scope.
  3. All reviews are double-blind, at least two reviews are collected per submission. A paper is accepted (possibly with rework), if both reviews are positive. If the two initial reviews disagree, a third – decisive – review from another programme committee member is requested.
  4. Reviewers are expected to indicate to the review management, if there are conflicts of interest or other factors that may impair the relevance of the review immediately (eg, they recognize author or work, they do not feel competent in the field, etc.); they are also requested to indicate cases, where duplicate submissions and plagiarism are suspected. Review management follows the relevant procedures in
  5. Reviews are expected to be pertinent and substantiate the decision to accept/accept with rework/reject a submission. They should provide hints to authors how to improve the quality of the paper; libellous or offensive criticism is not acceptable.
  6. Reviewers are kindly requested to produce their reviews in a timely manner in line with the published schedule of the conference; reviewers who decline their reviews without substantial reason or simply do not deliver are discontinued as programme committee members.
  7. Should the author/s of a submission feel that the procedures and principles of this guideline have been violated, the author/s can appeal from the initial decision to the review appeals board (currently consisting of Prof. Hendrik Hansen, Andrássy University, Prof. András Nemeslaki, NKE and Prof. Alexander Prosser, WU Vienna, mail to alexander.prosser// This board will review the decision, is entitled to request additional reviews if necessary and make a final decision on the submission.