Reviewer & Ethical Guidelines

Scholarly peer review is essential to advancing knowledge and maintaining high academic standards. Reviewers must uphold strict ethical standards.

1. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are strictly confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, circulate, or utilize the research contained in an assigned paper for personal benefit or prior to formal publication.

2. Conflicts of Interest

If you recognize the authors, share an active research collaboration, belong to the same direct institution, or have any competing interest that might impair impartial judgment, please use the Declare Conflict feature immediately so the manuscript can be reassigned.

3. Constructive & Rigorous Feedback

Reviews should provide constructive, courteous, and actionable evaluations. Critique the methodology, novelty, clarity, and relevance of the work. Avoid hostile or unprofessional remarks.

4. Rating Scale & Criteria

• 0.0 – 1.0: Substantially flawed, unoriginal, or out of scope. Strong Reject.
• 1.5 – 2.5: Significant deficiencies requiring extensive revision. Weak Reject.
• 3.0 – 3.5: Competent paper with moderate contributions. Borderline / Weak Accept.
• 4.0 – 4.5: High quality, rigorous contribution to the track. Accept.
• 5.0: Exceptional, seminal paper of outstanding scholarly merit. Strong Accept.

5. Save Draft vs Submit

You may save incomplete evaluations at any time using Save Draft. Once you confirm Submit Review, your ratings and comments will be transmitted to the Session Chair and finalized.