Peer review should be performed ethically and responsively. Reviewers will be invited to review a manuscript with the title and abstract provided. Reviewing the title and abstract quickly, reviewers should respond promptly to the invitation. If you could not take the review task for some reason (e.g., too busy), you should inform the Chair timely.

Peer reviewers are expected to give notice to the Chair when these situations occur：

1. You are unable to finish the peer review by the agreed deadline.

2. You find the manuscript confusing or beyond your academic expertise.

3. You would like to involve someone else in the reviewing process.

4. You are not sure if conflicts of interest exist. 

Reviewers will be asked to strictly evaluate the manuscript based on significant factors of "originality, scientific soundness, completeness and quality of presentation and English level" and provide a detailed and constructive review report to the Chair.

Review report

The review report should give constructive advice aiming at the overall improvement of the paper. Invited reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments on the manuscript covering overall recommendations and detailed comments in the review reports. The review report concludes with comments on each part of the paper, such as the title, abstract, and references… If a manuscript revision is suggested, it should be specific to particular paragraphs or sentences. 

How to review a manuscript?

Before accepting or declining the invitation, consider:

If the manuscript matches your area of research; and if you have enough time to perform a high-quality review; and if there exists a potential conflict of interest.

During the peer review, you should:

Keep confidential all documents and communications, and Notify the Chair if a conflict of interest exists, and Inform the Chair if you can't keep anonymous for some reasons, and Notify the Chair if there exists evidence of unethical behavior in the manuscript, and Provide objective and concise comments and improvement suggestions, and Not use the idea or data obtained in any form prior to the publication.

Your checklist for reviewing a paper

Quality of presentation: 

Title

-Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?

Abstract

-Does the abstract provide a summary of the paper?

-Does the abstract include the main question(s) and findings?

Structure and Length

-Does the paper have a complete and well-organized structure?

-Is the paper an appropriate length?

Logic

-Do the data support the conclusions?

-Does the Method target the main question(s) appropriately?

-Are the Results presented clearly and logically?

Figures and Tables

-Are they clearly and adequately described?

-Do they represent what the research is about?

-What do figures and tables add to the paper?

References

-Do the authors include proper references to published literature?

-Is referencing done correctly?

English

-ls the paper well written?

-Is the English understandable and readable?

Scientific Quality:

Novelty and Originality

-ls the research original and novel?

lmportance and Impact on the Research Area

-ls the research important to the field of research?

-What does the research add to the subject area?

Relevance to the Conference

-ls the question addressed by the research in line with the aim and scope of the conference?

-ls it attractive to the audience?

Completeness of Presentation

-Does the paper have an appropriate structure?

-ls the complete presentation and easy to read?

Your overall recommendation:

1. Accept

2. Accept with minor revisions

3. Revaluate with major revisions

4. Reject

Your confidential comments to the editor will not be disclosed to the authors. Still, have some doubts? Please get in touch with the editorial office at iceai@ic-eai.org