Peer-Review Process

Submitted manuscripts are validated by the Editorial Board by checking of technical and basic scientific compliance with conference requirements. The Editor may choose to reject manuscripts that do not fit within the topics of the conference, or are clearly lacking in scientific quality. Validated manuscripts are assigned to an reviewer on the basis of the profile submitted with the manuscript. The Editor-in-Chief performs a Progression Assessment using a review form.  The Referees reports are received by the Editor-in-Chief who makes a recommendation to the authors. This may involve one or more rounds of revision by the authors. The Final Decision to publish or reject is made by the Editor or a member of the Editorial Board. The Editorial Office is responsible for administering the Process, and all communication between Authors, Editor-in-Chief and Referees is via the Office. Editor-in-Chief may choose to remain anonymous, and Peer-Reviewers are always anonymous. A well prepared manuscript of high scientific quality will normally be sent to Editor-in-Chief within one week, be returned for sending to Peer Reviewers within a further -week and then for a two weeks response. If no revisions are needed, the manuscript could be accepted within five weeks.

You can see template for reviewers here.