A rigorous, unprejudiced and efficient review process is the corner stone for a reputable conference. Each paper submitted to the conference will be evaluated by at least two experts. Detailed and constructive comments from reviewers often help authors remedy flaws of their work and improve paper quality. The final decision on whether a manuscript can be accepted, reviewed or rejected is made by the editor basically on the recommendation of reviewers. We are sincerely grateful to reviewers who devoted their time to paper review and other support as requested by the Organizing Committee.
Criteria for Reviewers
Ability to review
Sound publication record
Benefits for volunteer reviewers
Peer reviewers take the honorable mission of a guide and a gatekeeper for those who are striving for quality researches. When performing peer review, reviewers:
Enjoy 20 percent rebate for submitting paper to IASED conference in the future.
Receive a personalized reviewer certificate.
Be acknowledged both on the conference website and in front matters of the conference proceedings.
Have an opportunity to be considered Best Reviewer Award.
How to review
Peer review should be performed ethically and responsively. Reviewers will be invited to review a manuscript with title and abstract provided. Looking through the title an abstract quickly, reviewers should give a timely response to the invitation. If you could not take the review task for some reason (e.g., too busy), you should inform the editor promptly.
Peer reviewers are expected to give notice to the editor when these situations occur：
You are unable to finish the peer review by the agreed deadline.
You find the manuscript confusing or beyond your academic expertise.
You would like to involve someone else into the reviewing process.
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 detailed and constructive review report to the editor.
The review report should give constructive advices aiming at the overall improvement of the paper. Invited reviewers are asked to give detailed comments on the manuscript covering overall recommendation and detailed comments in the review reports. The review report concludes comments on each part of the paper such as title, abstract, references… If revision of the manuscript is suggested, it should be specific to particular paragraphs or sentences.