We appreciate your interest of being a reviewer for the conference. As peer review is probably the most essential part of a conference in the pursuit of quality publications, the unbiased and efficient performance of reviewers is of vital importance in the selection of papers.
Papers submitted to the conference will undergo a review process jointly carried out by editors and reviewers in the pertinent subject area to the paper.
Being a peer reviewer in a conference is usually volunteer and unawarded work. We are striving to recognize the work of reviewers by offering the following benefits:
Authors are expecting to read detailed comments and suggestions from
reviewers which are helpful for the improvement of their work. Please
always give impartial and constructive feedback with reasonable
suggestions and professional tone.
If any sign of interest conflict is detected, it should be revealed to
the editor promptly. Please avoid suggesting the addition of irrelevant
or unnecessary references. If you find any suspected ethical issues
during the review process, please alert the editor immediately.
Please keep confidential about all intellectual contents of the
submissions and documents used in the review process. The manuscripts
should not be viewed by anyone else except from the reviewer themselves.
Any content obtained during peer review should not be used as personal
research use
Please leave the reviewing process sufficient time so it could be done
before the deadline. When you are not able to hand in the review report
by the deadline, please immediately inform the editors.
Please stay available for contact in case any special situation emerges,
and respond to the editor in a timely manner.
A formal structure of review report consisting of an overall
recommendation followed by explanatory comments addressing specific
questions and suggestions is highly recommended to help authors to
improve their work and help the editor make the final decision.
Advices on papers should be specific to particular sentences or
paragraphs.
Write comments clearly and only in English for our authors may speaks
different languages.
Authors have the right to rebut the peer review result which could lead
to second round of peer review. The editor has the authority to decide
whether to perform a second round of peer review.
Reviewer are expected to accept or decline any invitations in a timely manner, based on the manuscript title and abstract. If there is any conflict of interest, or the study is beyond your areas of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible.
Application to join the committee are invited from academics and
practitioners researching or working in the field. If you would like to
be considered as a member of a conference committee or as a reviewer for
submitted papers, please send your CV to conference email:
eset.conference@outlook.com