Review Process

• Ensures that only high-quality science is published.
• Central to scholarly publishing and maintaining high standards.

• The Chair TPC evaluates all manuscripts.
• Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage for:
  • Lack of originality.
  • Serious scientific flaws.
  • Poor grammar or English.
  • Being outside the scope of the conference.
• Exceptional manuscripts may be accepted without further review.

• Manuscripts meeting the minimum criteria are reviewed by at least two experts.
• The process follows double-blind reviewing (both reviewer and author remain anonymous).

• Referees are matched based on their expertise.
• The referee database is regularly updated.

Referees assess manuscripts based on the following:

• Originality.
• Methodological soundness.
• Adherence to ethical guidelines.
• Clear presentation of results and valid conclusions.
• Correct referencing of previous work.

• Referees may suggest language corrections, but this is not a core part of the review process.

• Review time depends on referee responses.
• If referees disagree or delay, additional opinions may be sought.
• In rare cases, decisions can be made based on one referee’s report.

• Chair TPC sends the decision with referee recommendations, often including their comments.
• Revised manuscripts may undergo further review by initial referees.

• Referees provide advice, but the editor has the final say in accepting or rejecting a manuscript.

• Contact the editor to become a referee.
• Benefits include early access to new research and contributing to scientific integrity.
• Refereeing can count toward professional development for various societies and organizations.

• The review process follows IEEE standards.