Each paper will be assigned to be reviewed by at least two peer reviewers. Reviewers are selected from the specific areas, responsible for the fairness, efficiency and integrity of peer review process. Once receive the review invitation from the editor, the reviewer has the right to decline to review the paper for the reasons including unmatched focused field, competing interest or not being able to complete the review by the deadline. In this case, the editor will assign the paper to alternative reviewer in the conference committee.
The papers will be reviewed by at least two or three reviewers, but usually by more to review the papers’ relevance, originality, technical quality, significance and presentation.
Each reviewer will be assigned to not exceed 3 papers at a time and given 2-4 weeks for one paper reviewing.
The reviewer should account for their reviewing decision by providing the sufficient, substantial and well-founded comments that may help the authors to optimize the paper. In addition, the reviewer is also probably asked to answer a series of questions by the program committee. After receiving the review comments, the authors are entitled to the rebuttal and its’ feedback. But the final review decision will not be changed in virtue of that.
This step is conducted by the editor(s) assumed by the Program Chair / Program Co-Chair of the conference. In this process, the editor will have a quick look at the manuscript and evaluate the overall impression of it such as relevance to the conference scope, originality of paper, language, layout, artwork quality and paper length.
Peer Review Policy
The authors and reviewers are not aware of the identities of both sides.
The paper should be original, offer novel ideas or achieve advances in the specific research areas.
Relevance to the conference
The research of the accepted paper should be relevant to the conference and important to the research field.
The paper should contain valid analysis and solid experiment design, and should make a sufficient impact on the research field covered.
Quality of Presentation
The quality of English language usage and grammar should be appropriate and easy to read. The presentation of the paper should be well balanced and presented in a logical order.
• Protect paper Info.
The contents of the papers cannot be used, referenced, or included in future work by the reviewers until the review, presentation, and publication processes are complete. Until then, the information in the papers should be treated as confidential and may not be used for any purpose not related to the review process. Reviewers should never share the reviewed version of the paper, review findings, reviewer comments on papers, or deliberations on the review decisions with anyone other than the review committee and the conference staff.
• Protect personal Info.
Since the review process is double-blind. All our reviewers are expected to maintain anonymity and authors should avoid revealing themselves in the paper. In particular, it is not allowed for reviewers to contact the authors of an accepted paper directly mentioning their role in the process. The authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments and other related personal information will be deleted or covered before the papers are sent to double-blind peer review.
About Review Comments
The paper review process has two separate but equally important goals. The first is to provide guidance to the authors, and the second is to provide editors and conference organizer with the basis for presentation and publication decisions. Paper reviewers have a responsibility to read the paper carefully and then provide the authors with a clear, detailed, diplomatic, and unbiased evaluation. Avoid vague complaints and provide appropriate citations if authors are unaware of relevant work. Reviewers often begin with an overall assessment of the paper (Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance and Presentation) and continue by identifying the prominent strengths and weaknesses. Starting with the “big picture” helps the author frame the subsequent detailed comments. The detailed comments should focus on specific features of the paper Review Form we sent you.