Confidentiality
Assigned reviewers remain anonymous during and after the review period. Communication between reviewers and authors is only permissible through the editorial board. Any article assigned for review must be kept confidential, and nothing related to the paper should be disclosed to others without the editor's explicit permission.
Anonymity
The conference operates under a double blind review policy. The identities of reviewers must not be revealed to the authors, and reviewers should not be aware of the identity of the author(s).
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers may encounter potential conflicts of interest with authors during the review process, such as being colleagues, contributing to the paper's completion, or having a competitive relationship within the same research area. Reviewers are expected to maintain an unbiased approach. If a conflict of interest arises, the reviewer must declare it and either resolve the conflict or decline the review, allowing for reassignment to another review
Timely Review of Manuscripts
Reviewers must allocate sufficient time for the review process and adhere to the conference's deadlines diligently. Competent reviewers approach their tasks purposefully, ensuring thorough review even for shorter manuscripts or those that may not ultimately be accepted.
Adequate Reviewer Comments
A good reviewer furnishes comprehensive, well-argued constructive feedback to the author. Even in cases of manuscript rejection, the reviewer's insights aid authors in making specific improvements and enhance the scholarly research process for future papers. Reviewers adeptly identify a paper's value, originality, and scholarly scope, thereby informing recommendations on manuscript acceptance. Attention is directed towards ethical considerations, including adherence to customary standards, humane treatment of animals or human subjects, and detection of potential plagiarism.
