Peer Review Process

Initial Screening

• Submissions are checked for completeness, formatting compliance, and similarity index (plagiarism screening). All submitted papers will undergo a plagiarism check, and the similarity index must be less than 15% (including AI-generated text) to be considered for review/publication. If the similarity index is found to be greater than 15%, it will not be considered for proceedings and can be rejected at any stage.

Reviewer Assignment

• The conference follows single-anonymous peer-review. Each paper will be assigned to at least two to three independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

• Reviewers are selected by the Technical Program Committee based on subject matter knowledge and absence of conflicts of interest.

Review Criteria

During the peer review process, reviewers look for the following.

• Scope: Is the paper appropriate for the scope of this conference?

• Novelty: Is this original material distinct from previous publications?

• Validity: Is the study well designed and executed?

• Data: Are the data reported, analyzed, and interpreted correctly?

• Clarity: Are the ideas expressed clearly, concisely, and logically?

• Compliance: Are all ethical and publication requirements met?

• Advancement: Is this a significant contribution to the field?

Peer Review Decisions

Conference peer review occurs within a fixed window of time. All authors are notified of the peer review decision on their paper at the same time.

You may receive one of three possible decisions.

• Accept: Your paper will be published without edits. You may be asked to upload final camera-ready files.

• Accept with revision: Your paper will be accepted after you implement edits suggested by the reviewers. You will be asked to provide a revised version.

• Reject: Your paper will not be presented at the conference or published in the conference proceedings. You may submit your paper to another publication.

Decision Notification

• Authors are informed of decisions along with anonymized reviewer comments.

• Authors must resubmit within the stipulated timeline.

• Final acceptance is contingent on satisfactory revision and compliance with ethical standards.