Peer Review Guideline and Ethics of Review
The peer-review process requires that everyone involved behaves ethically and responsibly. Peer reviewers play a central and critical part of the peer-review process. The publication activity at this conference is serious indeed: It is not just a matter of careers and reputations, but also academic tenure decisions, often hinge on these publications.
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 editor 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.
• 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.
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.
A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If a conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review the paper.
If a reviewer unable to render an objective judgment for any reason, he or she should notify the conference staff, or provide the names of potential reviewers.