Contributions submitted by email are evaluated by the editor-in-chief to determine if they meet the level, substantive, and formal requirements for publication. If the contributions meet the conference organizer's and the proceedings publisher's requirements, the chairman of the International Scientific Committee appoints two reviewers. If the contributions do not meet these requirements, they are rejected and returned to the author. The author is informed that they may address the formal deficiencies and resubmit the contribution.
The peer review process for all contributions, while maintaining mutual anonymity, is governed by the reviewer's code of ethics, which stipulates the following:
- Evaluate articles objectively based solely on their scientific quality.
- Acknowledge that reviews are anonymous on both sides.
- Keep the content of reviewed articles confidential.
- Prepare a peer review personally and without unnecessary delay.
The reviewers will also evaluate compliance with author guidelines, compliance with copyright, and ensure that the contribution is not plagiarism.
At the end of the peer review process, the reviewers will evaluate the assessed contribution and provide feedback on whether to:
- Publish the contribution in its current version.
- Publish the contribution after minor modifications.
- Publish the contribution after significant revisions.
- Reject the contribution.
The final decision on whether to accept or reject the paper is sent to the author along with the reviewers' recommendations.
Reviewers are required to assess each submission based on its intellectual content without considering the authors' race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, citizenship, or political philosophy. The decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based on the paper's importance, originality, and comprehensibility, as well as its relevance to the conference's aim and focus.
