Review Process and Evaluation Criteria

1. Call for Papers and Submission

• Authors are invited to submit original, unpublished research papers aligned with the conference theme and tracks.
• Submissions are accepted through the official conference submission portal, following the prescribed format and deadline.

2. Initial Screening

• The editorial team checks each submission for:
• Relevance to the conference scope.
• Compliance with formatting guidelines.
• Plagiarism using tools like Turnitin or iThenticate.
• Submissions failing to meet basic criteria are desk-rejected.

3. Reviewer Assignment

• Each qualifying paper is assigned to 2–3 independent reviewers with subject expertise.
• The review process follows a double-blind peer review method to ensure unbiased evaluation (authors and reviewers remain anonymous).

4. Review Criteria

• Originality and novelty of the work.
• Technical quality and accuracy.
• Relevance to the conference theme and track.
• Clarity of presentation and writing.
• Significance of results and conclusions.
• Quality of references and prior work integration.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

• Reviewers recommend: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
• Review comments are shared with authors (anonymously) for improvement if revisions are required.

6. Revision and Re-review

• Authors revise and resubmit the paper within the given timeframe.
• Revised papers may be re-evaluated by the original reviewers to assess improvements.

7. Final Decision

• The Technical Program Committee (TPC) or track chairs make final acceptance decisions based on reviewer feedback and conference capacity.
• Accepted papers are scheduled for oral/poster presentation and included in the proceedings.

8. Proceedings Preparation

• Final camera-ready versions are checked for quality and compliance.
• Papers are compiled and submitted to the publisher (e.g., IEEE, Springer, Elsevier) for indexing.