Peer review should be conducted in a manner that is both ethical and responsive. Reviewers will receive invitations to review manuscripts along with their titles and abstracts. It is expected that reviewers respond promptly to these invitations after a cursory review of the title and abstract. If, for any reason (e.g., being too busy), reviewers are unable to undertake the review, they should promptly inform the editor.
Peer reviewers are expected to notify the editor in the following situations:
1. Inability to complete the peer review by the agreed-upon deadline.
2. Finding the manuscript confusing or beyond their academic expertise.
3. Wanting to involve others in the review process.
4. Uncertainty regarding the presence of a conflict of interest.
Reviewers will be asked to critically evaluate the manuscript based on important factors such as originality, scientific soundness, integrity and quality of presentation, and English proficiency. They are also expected to provide a detailed and constructive review report to the editor.
Review reports should offer constructive suggestions aimed at improving the paper. Invited reviewers should provide detailed comments covering overall recommendations and specific aspects of the manuscript, such as the title, abstract, and references. If revisions to the manuscript are suggested, they should be specific to certain paragraphs or sentences.
How to review a manuscript?
Before accepting or declining the invitation to review, reviewers should consider:
- Compatibility of the manuscript with their research area.
- Availability of sufficient time for a quality review.
- Ability to complete the review within the agreed time.
- Potential conflicts of interest.
During the peer review process, reviewers should:
- Keep all documents and correspondence confidential.
- Notify the editor of any conflicts of interest.
- Inform the editor if anonymity cannot be maintained for any reason.
- Report any evidence of unethical behavior in the manuscript.
- Provide objective, concise comments and suggestions for improvement.
- Refrain from using ideas or data obtained prior to publication.
Your checklist for reviewing a paper
Quality of presentation:
- Title: Does it properly reflect the subject of the paper?
- Abstract: Does it provide a summary of the paper, including main issues and findings?
- Structure and Length: Is the paper well-organized and an appropriate length?
- Logic: Do the data support the conclusions? Is the methodology appropriate?
- Figures and Tables: Are they clearly described and relevant?
- References: Are they appropriate and correctly cited?
- English: Is the paper well-written and understandable?
- Novelty and Originality: Is the research original and novel?
- Importance and Impact: Does the research contribute significantly to the field?
- Relevance to the Conference: Is the research aligned with the conference's aim and scope?
Your overall recommendation
2. Accept with minor revisions
3. Revaluate with major revisions
Reviewers should inform the Chair in situations where they
- Cannot finish the peer review by the agreed deadline.
- Find the manuscript confusing or beyond their expertise.
- Wish to involve someone else in the reviewing process.
- Are unsure about conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are expected to strictly evaluate manuscripts based on significant factors such as originality, scientific soundness, completeness, quality of presentation, and English proficiency, and provide detailed and constructive review reports to the editor.