For Reviewers

To ensure consistent, constructive, and fair reviews, we ask reviewers to follow these principles:

1. Confidentiality

• Treat all submissions as strictly confidential. Papers are shared with reviewers in trust, and their content must not be disclosed to anyone outside the review process.
• Do not use, discuss, or reproduce any part of a manuscript before its official publication.
• If you wish to consult a colleague for clarification, you must first obtain permission from the program committee.

2. Objectivity and Fairness

• Evaluate each submission solely on academic merit, clarity, contribution, and relevance to the conference.
• Avoid any form of bias based on nationality, institutional affiliation, career stage, gender, or personal relationships.
• Identify and declare potential conflicts of interest (e.g., collaborations with the authors, institutional ties, or competing projects). If in doubt, recuse yourself and inform the program committee immediately.
• Strive for consistency: apply the same evaluation standards to all submissions.

3. Constructive Feedback

• Provide comments that are specific, clear, and actionable. Authors should be able to use your feedback to strengthen their work.
• Highlight positive aspects (e.g., novelty, methodological rigor, clear writing) as well as areas for improvement.
• Avoid overly general statements (“unclear” or “not original”) without explanation. Instead, cite concrete sections or examples.
• Be respectful in tone: reviews should support scholarly growth, especially for early-career researchers.

4. Review Structure

• A well-structured review helps both the authors and the program committee. Please include:
• Summary: Restate the paper’s contribution in your own words to demonstrate understanding.
• Strengths: Identify innovative aspects, sound methods, or strong relevance to the field.
• Weaknesses/Limitations: Note gaps, unclear arguments, methodological flaws, or missing literature.
• Suggestions: Provide constructive recommendations (clarifications, additional references, methodological refinements).
• Recommendation: Clearly indicate your overall judgment (accept, minor revision, major revision, reject) in line with conference criteria.

5. Professional Conduct

• Use respectful and professional language in all communications.
• Avoid comments that may be perceived as dismissive, sarcastic, or offensive.
• Meet deadlines for submitting reviews; late reviews create unfair delays for authors.
• Treat all authors equally, whether established researchers or first-time contributors.

6. Quality Standards

• When assessing papers, reviewers should check whether they meet the conference’s standards of academic quality:
• Originality and novelty: Does the paper offer a fresh idea, perspective, or application?
• Relevance: Is the paper aligned with the themes and scope of the conference?
• Significance: Does it advance theoretical understanding, practical applications, or both?
• Methodological soundness: Are the methods appropriate, transparent, and replicable?
• Clarity of writing: Is the paper well-structured, clearly written, and accessible to its intended audience?

7. Responsible Use of AI Tools

• The rise of artificial intelligence has introduced new possibilities but also new responsibilities in the peer-review process. Reviewers are expected to:
• Not delegate the review to AI tools: Automated systems must not replace the reviewer’s own judgment, expertise, or responsibility.
• Permissible support: Reviewers may use AI tools to check grammar, improve readability of their own review text, or quickly search for references—provided that the final evaluation remains their own.
• Prohibited practices: Submitting AI-generated reviews, copying summaries from AI tools without verification, or inputting confidential manuscripts into public AI systems is strictly forbidden.
• Transparency: If an AI tool is used to support minor tasks (e.g., improving phrasing of the review text), it should not compromise confidentiality and should be acknowledged to the program committee if relevant.
• Ethical responsibility: Human reviewers remain fully accountable for the quality, accuracy, and integrity of their reviews, regardless of whether AI assistance is used.

8. Commitment to Scholarly Integrity

By accepting an invitation to review, reviewers affirm their commitment to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, and respect. Each review contributes not only to the conference but also to the advancement of knowledge within the broader community.