NOTICE!
We strongly remind that the participants who will benefit from the ACADEMIC INCENTIVE
ALLOWANCE must submit FULL TEXT in accordance with the academic incentive allowance regulation.

NOTICE!
PAY ATTENTION TO THE TYPE OF THE ABSTRACT
You can upload your FULL-TEXT PAPERS to online system after acceptance of the abstract.
NOTICE!
The Peer Review Process Depents on the Evaluation of the Referees to be Appointed by the Scientific Committee of the Congress

CLICK HERE FOR ONLINE SUBMISSION

REGULATION ON PREPARATION AND EVALUATION OF ABSTRACTS OF
“3RD INTERNATIONAL URBAN, ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH CONGRESS – IUEHC”

SECTION – 1
Purpose, Scope, Definitions
Purpose
Article 1- The purpose of this directive is to regulate the work of  the Scientific Committee of 3rd International Urban, Environment and Health Congress, the stages related to the preparation and presentation of the abstracts and the procedures and principles to be followed before, during and after the Congress.
Scope
Article 2-  This directive covers the rules to be followed in all scientific studies to be carried out within the scope of the Congress. In this context, the activities of the scientific committee of the Congress, the form requirements for the preparation of the abstracts, the sending of the abstracts, the acceptance, the process of arbitration of the abstracts and the review with the scientific and ethical rules in the conduct of these activities covers the issues.
Definitions
Article 3- In this directive;
a)  Congress; 3rd International Urban, Environment and Health Congress
b)  Organization Committe; Committee in scope of 3rd International Urban, Environment and Health Congress
c)  Scientific Committee; Committee formed in scope of 3rd International Urban, Environment and Health Congress and evaluating the abstracts
d) Scientific Secretariat; Secretariat working under the Coordinator of the Congress Scientific Committee and following the arbitration processes of the proceedings,
e)  Agency;  The company that will carry out all the organizational activities of the Congress
SECTION – 2
Terms and Conditions of Submission
Submission Rules
Article 4- The rules to be followed in the abstracts to be sent to the Congress are described below.
a)  Abstracts will be sent via the Congress web page. Abstracts sent by fax or mail will not be evaluated. The link to send the abstracts will be accessed from the Congress website.
b)  The acknowledgment will be sent by e-mail to the author.
c)  Abstracts should not be longer than 400 words. Abstracts should be written using the titles of objectives, methods, findings and conclusions. The abstracts should contain the author's name, institution, contact information and key words.
d) In the proceedings, the criteria for preparing the abstracts in section 3 will be followed.
e) After the evaluation of the referee author will be notified by e-mail about the corrections if necessary, whether the declaration is accepted or not, type (oral / poster) if accepted.
f) The evaluation process can be followed through the online submission system on the Congress web page.
g) The accepted abstracts will be included in the E-Congress Book and/or the printed book.
h) References should be in APA 6 format.
i) At least one of the authors of the abstract must register with the Congress in order for the abstract to be included in the Congress Book.
j) A participant will have the opportunity to present a maximum of 3 abstracts (poster or oral).
k) The duration of the oral presentation is maximum 10 minutes. It is recommended to prepare a maximum of 10-12 slides for presentation. Projector and computer support will be provided. Oral presentations, along with other presentations under similar themes, will be presented at sessions whose duration will be announced in the program to be published on the web.
l) The presentation of each poster will be made in the time and place allotted for it. The texts prepared for the poster should not be more than 750 words (excluding references). The instruction must be in accordance with the format attached.
SECTION – 3
Preparation and evaluation of Abstracts and Acceptance Criteria
Abstract Preparation Criteria
Article 5- Two types of abstracts can be sent to the Congress: research and review.
Article 6- The preparation and loading of research abstracts should be as follows:
a)   Title: Should be written in capital letters, should be short and concise, should reflect the content of the work, should be appropriate in terms of defining and generalizing the work.
b)   Authors: It must be registered in order of name to the system.
c)   Introduction-purpose: brief information about the subject of the study should be given, the importance of the study, why it was done and the purpose of the study should be clearly stated.
d)   Materials-Methods: The type, location, time, universe, sample, data collection method, variables of the research, data analysis and statistical tests used should be indicated.
e)   Results: This is the section where the findings of the study are presented to the reader clearly. Images, tables and graphics can be added.
f)    Conclusion: The important results of the study in short, its contribution to existing knowledge and the conclusions and suggestions based on it, should be included.
g)    References: Should be in APA 6 format.
Article
7- Review type declarations should be prepared and uploaded to the system as follows:
a)    Title: Should be written in capital letters, should be short and concise, should reflect the content of the work, should be appropriate in terms of defining and generalizing the work.
b)    Introduction: The reason and purpose of the review should be stated in this section.
c)    Method: contains information about when, by which references, by whom, and how it was prepared.
d)    Results and Discussion / Information obtained and examination: The information collected should be written in general to specific, organized in accordance with the conceptual framework, in the form of titles and by specifying the references. The existing information is analyzed by parsing. New syntheses, oppositions, solutions to questions and problems are included here. The comments and results of the author are included in this section, and discussion and comments that are not based on information should be avoided.
e)    References: Should be in APA 6 format
Evaluation Criteria
8-  The referees to be appointed by the Scientific Committee of the Congress shall make their evaluation of the abstracts according to the "Evaluation Criteria" in the table below.

No TYPE OF THE ABSTRACT
Evaluation Form
Poor Fair Good Very
Good
Excellent
1 The appropriateness of the title of the abstract in terms of defining the work should be concise, reflect the content of the work, and be appropriate in terms of defining and generalising the work 1 2 3 4 5
2 Subject originality of the work 1 2 3 4 5
3 Importance and rationale of the study 1 2 3 4 5
4 Conformity of the study with the main theme of the congress 1 2 3 4 5
5 Clarifying the purpose of the study clearly 1 2 3 4 5
6 Place, time and type of study 1 2 3 4 5
7 Universe of study, sample size and sampling method 1 2 3 4 5
8 Acceptance or exclusion criteria for the study 1 2 3 4 5
9 Data collection format of the study 1 2 3 4 5
10 Variables of the study (Dependent-independent) 1 2 3 4 5
11 Specifying the statistical methods used in the study 1 2 3 4 5
12 The relevance of the findings section of the research to the aims of the study 1 2 3 4 5
13 Presenting the findings in an understandable and impartial manner 1 2 3 4 5
14 Presentation of the results of statistical analysis in findings 1 2 3 4 5
15 Relevance of statistical analysis in findings 1 2 3 4 5
16 Stating the important results of the study 1 2 3 4 5
17 Have important/useful results been obtained from the study? 1 2 3 4 5
18 Were there suggestions based on the study results? 1 2 3 4 5
19 Are the resources adequately selected, up-to-date, relevant and appropriate? 1 2 3 4 5
20

Is the study comprehensively written? (Scientific language should be used correctly, the article should not be too long, there should be no mistakes in grammar and abbreviations)

1 2 3 4 5

Article 9-  Referees to be appointed by the Scientific Committee of the Congress shall make their evaluation of the review according to the "Evaluation Criteria" in the table below

No TYPE OF THE RESEARCH
Evaluation Form
Poor Fair Good Very
Good
Excellent
1

Title:
Is it appropriate to describe the study?
(Should be short, concise and meaningful, reflect the content of the review, should be appropriate in terms of defining and generalizing the abstracts)

1 2 3 4 5
2 Subject:
Is the originality of the subject and the review compatible with the main theme of the congress?
1 2 3 4 5
3 Aim:
Has the importance, rationale and purpose of the review been stated?
1 2 3 4 5
4

Data collection format:
Is there information on when, by whom, using which basic sources and how the review was done?

1 2 3 4 5
5

Systematics of the review:
Have historical processes and basic-classical-traditional information about the subject been examined? Are there any missing or controversial points in the literature on the subject?

1 2 3 4 5
6 Examination Way
Is it written in general to specific, organized in accordance with the conceptual framework, in the form of titles?
1 2 3 4 5
7

Evaluation / Findings:
Are the evaluations / findings given in a specific systematic manner?
(The existing information is analyzed by parsing. By making new syntheses, the content, unknowns or problems that will have important benefits in its use are determined. Contrasts are exhibited. Solutions to identified problems can be proposed. Creating new research questions).

1 2 3 4 5
8

Success of the review / discussion / commentary:
Does the information in the compiled articles fit the purpose and rationale?
Is the information sorted in an order?
Have the findings been made clear and unbiased?
Have the study's important results been noted?
Were there suggestions based on the study results?

1 2 3 4 5
9

Is the study comprehensively written?
Scientific language should be used correctly, the article should not be too long,
There should be no mistakes in grammar and abbreviations.

1 2 3 4 5
10

References:
Are there sufficient, up-to-date, relevant and appropriate sources selected?
Does it contain any new information that has been produced about it?
Has enough literature been reviewed?

1 2 3 4 5

Acceptance Criteria
Article 10- Acceptance of the proceedings shall be made with the positive assessment of at least two referees. The referee process will be conducted on the basis of the”Blind Referee System".
Article 11- The presentation of the papers sent within the scope of the Congress as oral papers is incentived.

SECTION- 4
Non-Provisions, Miscellaneous and Final Provisions

Non-Provisions
Article 12- In cases that are not included in this directive regarding the organisation of the congress, regulation may be
made by the decision of the Organizing Committee of the congress. If the subject falls within the definition of the task of the Scientific Committee then Organizing Committee shall take the opinion of the Scientific Committee of the Congress.
Enforcement
Article 13- This directive comes into force by the decision of the Congress Organizing Committee.
Executive
Article 14- The provisions of this Directive are executed by the Scientific Committee and the Scientific Secretariat of the Congress.