Complete / Full Papers
Our meticulous review process adheres to a double-blind framework, safeguarding the anonymity of both authors and reviewers. Before diving into the evaluation, all submitted papers undergo rigorous plagiarism checks using specialized software to maintain academic integrity. 

Each full paper is subjected to thorough scrutiny by a minimum of two expert international reviewers, tasked with assessing the manuscript across several crucial dimensions:

• Relevance: Is the paper directly pertinent to the conference's themes and objectives?
• Originality: Does the work bring forth novel ideas, concepts, or approaches?
• Technical Quality: Is the research methodologically sound and technically proficient?
• Significance and Presentation: Does the paper effectively convey its significance, and is it well-presented?

In addition to these overarching criteria, reviewers are guided to provide feedback on specific aspects that can assist authors in enhancing their paper, assuming it passes the review phase.

These constructive questions include: 

• Are the Abstract and Introduction adequately clear in setting the stage for the research?
• Is there a requirement for additional experimental results to bolster the paper's claims?
• Is a comparative evaluation necessary to provide context and insights?
• Can the critical discussion be improved for a more comprehensive understanding?
• Are the figures and illustrations appropriate and informative?
• Do the Conclusions/Future Work sections leave a convincing impact?
• Are the references current and pertinent to the subject matter?
• Does the paper require any formatting adjustments for better readability?
• Is there an opportunity to enhance the clarity and fluency of the English language used?

Furthermore, our reviewers comments are shared with the authors to provide specific insights and recommendations for improvement. Additionally, confidential feedback is made available solely to the program chair, ensuring a balanced evaluation process. In cases where conflicting reviews arise, we may opt to assign a new reviewer to ensure fairness and accuracy. Ultimately, the program chairs are entrusted with making the final determination regarding acceptance. Authors are afforded a period to submit a rebuttal, which initiates a collaborative workflow involving the chairs and reviewers if deemed necessary. While all rebuttals receive responses, the decisions reached are considered binding.

Abstracts

Abstract submissions are evaluated by a distinguished panel of experts, comprising the conference and program chairs, who collectively bring a wealth of knowledge to the assessment process. To ensure a comprehensive and fair review, authors are strongly encouraged to submit abstracts that provide clear and concise insights into their work, along with necessary background information. 

While every submitted abstract is given due consideration, it's essential to highlight that insufficient evidence of scientific novelty or a lack of context to comprehend the proposal's significance may result in rejection during the review process.

Ethics of Review

1. Do Reviews in a Serious Way

The act of publishing papers carries significant weight, as it often influences academic careers, reputations, and even tenure decisions. Consequently, we have a profound responsibility to approach the review process with utmost seriousness. Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive and constructive assessments. It should be apparent that the reviewer has invested time in thoroughly examining the paper. Superficial or hasty reviews can compromise the professionalism of our conferences and, in the long run, diminish their quality. If, due to time constraints or other commitments, you find yourself unable to conduct a rigorous review, please withdraw from the process well in advance to allow for alternative arrangements.

2. Be Relevant and Helpful

Authors seek valuable feedback in reviews to understand the strengths and weaknesses of their work and how to enhance it. Offer respectful and clear explanations for your preferences and concerns, enabling authors to benefit from your expertise. Familiarity with the conference's subject areas is expected, and reviewers should evaluate submissions based on the context of the conference, including aspects like relevance, originality, technical quality, significance, and presentation. Reviewers should also assist authors in improving their papers by addressing specific questions, such as the adequacy of the abstract and introduction, the need for more experimental results, the requirement for comparative evaluation, the potential for improving critical discussion, the appropriateness of figures, the persuasiveness of conclusions/future work, the currency and relevance of references, the necessity for formatting adjustments, and the potential for improving English language usage.

3. Remain Anonymous
The review process operates under a double-blind system which means that reviewers are expected to uphold strict anonymity, and authors should take measures to prevent their identities from being disclosed in the paper. It is never appropriate for reviewers to directly contact authors of accepted papers, mentioning their role in the review process. Requesting citations primarily to one's own work should be done cautiously, as it can jeopardize anonymity.

4. Protect Ideas

Reviewers have a vital role in safeguarding the confidentiality of the ideas presented in the papers they assess. Conference submissions are not considered published documents and are often in a state of development. Of course, authors ultimately intend to publish their work; however, many of the submitted papers will end up being rejected from this year's conference. Thus, it is likely that the paper you have in your hands will be refined further and submitted to another journal or conference. As a result, reviewers must exercise caution to protect the ideas in the submissions:

• Do not share the paper with anyone else, including colleagues or students, unless they have been asked to provide a review or assist with it.
• Refrain from showing videos or other materials to non-reviewers.
• Do not use ideas from the papers you review to develop new research projects until they are publicly available

5. Avoid Conflict of Interest

Maintaining impartiality is crucial and any potential conflicts of interest must be unequivocally avoided to preserve the integrity of the review process. Conflict situations may include:

• Having direct involvement in the work and expecting to receive credit, such as serving on the author's thesis committee.
• Serving as the MSc/PhD advisor or advisee of one of the authors, representing a lifetime conflict of interest.
• Possessing unpublished work that could be overshadowed by the current submission, as it addresses the same problem using a similar approach. If asked to review a paper that presents such a conflict, it is advisable to decline and promptly inform the Program Chair.

While the review assignment algorithm strives to prevent conflicts, if you recognize a potential conflict due to familiarity with the work or the author(s), promptly return the paper to the Program Chair, allowing for an alternative reviewer to be appointed.