Peer review is a crucial stage in the publication process wherein experts in relevant research fields evaluate submitted manuscripts. Research papers must undergo peer review by two to three expert reviewers before acceptance, with the possibility of a second peer review for revised papers, if necessary. The outcome of peer review aids authors in enhancing the quality of their papers through constructive feedback and allows editors designated by the Program Chair of the conference to determine a submission's suitability for publication.
The assessment process is divided into 2 parts: Initial Check and Peer Review. It is important to note that only full papers that pass the Initial Check proceed to Peer Review. Reviewers are expected to meticulously evaluate the submitted manuscript and provide a detailed review report to assist authors in improving their papers' quality. Authors may be requested to revise their papers based on suggestions provided by peer reviewers. Ultimately, the editor will make the final decision regarding whether the paper should be accepted or rejected, taking into account recommendations from the reviewers.
Initial Check
This phase is overseen by the editor. During this stage, the editor will conduct a brief assessment of the manuscript, considering aspects such as its relevance to the conference scope, originality, language proficiency, layout, artwork quality, and length.
Double Blind Peer Review
The authors and reviewers are not aware of the identities of both sides. Each paper undergoes evaluation by a minimum of two, often exceeding three reviewers. Reviewers are allocated a maximum of four papers and granted 2 weeks to complete each review. They are tasked with evaluating the submission's originality, relevance, technical quality, significance, and presentation.
Criteria
Originality
The paper is expected to present original ideas, offering innovation or advancing knowledge in specific research domains.
Relevance to the Conference
Accepted papers should demonstrate relevance to the conference theme and contribute significantly to the respective research field.
Significance
Papers should feature robust experiment design and analysis, leading to meaningful contributions within the covered research area.
Quality of Presentation
The language and grammar should demonstrate proficiency and readability. The paper's structure should be well-balanced and logically organized for effective presentation.
Decisions and Revisions
During the peer review process, authors will receive one of the following four types of feedback:
Accept: The paper is accepted without revisions.
Accept with minor revisions: The paper will be accepted with minor revisions. In this scenario, the revised paper will be reviewed by the editor only.
Reassessment with major revisions: The paper will be sent to the original reviewer for evaluation (unless they opt out) or assessed by the editor.
Reject: The paper will not be accepted due to significant deficiencies, and resubmission is not recommended.
Note: Authors have the right to submit rebuttals or question the editor's comments.
About Review Comments
The paper review process serves two key purposes: guiding authors and informing editors and conference organizers for publication decisions. Reviewers must meticulously evaluate papers, offering clear, detailed, diplomatic, and unbiased feedback to authors. It's essential to avoid vague criticisms and provide relevant citations when necessary. Reviewers typically begin with an overall assessment covering Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance, and Presentation, then proceed to highlight specific strengths and weaknesses.
