Peer Review Process
Ensuring methodological soundness through a stringent, multi-stage Double-Blind evaluation workflow.
1. The Double-Blind Evaluation Paradigm
To guarantee absolute academic integrity, all symposia and proceedings technically sponsored by ISASTE employ a strict Double-Blind Peer Review methodology. In this paradigm, both the authors' and the reviewers' identities are meticulously concealed from each other. This operational firewall guarantees that the evaluation of submissions is completely insulated from institutional bias, geographical prejudice, or personal favoritism, ensuring that publication decisions rest entirely upon the epistemological and technical merit of the research.
2. Phase I: Initial Editorial Desk Screening
Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an immediate initial desk evaluation conducted by the Managing Editor. This critical phase verifies three fundamental parameters:
- The manuscript falls strictly within the thematic scope of the targeted conference.
- The manuscript strictly adheres to the mandated academic formatting guidelines (e.g., IEEE or Springer standard templates).
- The manuscript passes the mandatory anti-plagiarism screening (similarity index must remain strictly below 20%).
Submissions failing this initial quality control check are subjected to an immediate Desk Reject without entering the peer review pool, thereby conserving the valuable time of both the authors and the reviewing committee.
3. Phase II: Anonymization and Expert Allocation
Manuscripts that successfully navigate the initial screening are rigorously anonymized. The Technical Program Committee (TPC) then utilizes an algorithmic and manual matching process to assign the manuscript to a minimum of two independent domain experts. In strict accordance with ISASTE Bylaws, only committee members holding a verified Ph.D. or an equivalent terminal degree are authorized to execute peer reviews, ensuring that the critical analysis is conducted by individuals with proven methodological expertise.
4. Phase III: The Evaluation Matrix
During the blind evaluation phase, reviewers conduct an in-depth dissection of the manuscript. They evaluate the submission against a standardized matrix of core scientific criteria:
- Originality & Innovation: Does the paper present novel empirical findings, a unique theoretical framework, or a significant technological advancement?
- Methodological Rigor: Are the experiments reproducible? Are the mathematics, algorithms, and logical proofs scientifically sound and free from systemic bias?
- Relevance & Impact: Is the research problem critically aligned with current engineering challenges, and does it contribute meaningfully to the broader scientific literature?
- Clarity & Presentation: Is the English language syntax sufficiently accurate for international dissemination? Are the figures, data tables, and references legible and properly formatted?
5. Phase IV: Final Editorial Decisions and Rebuttals
Reviewers submit their detailed analytical reports alongside a formal recommendation: Accept, Accept with Minor Revisions, Revise and Resubmit (Major Revisions), or Reject. Should the primary reviewers issue conflicting recommendations, the TPC Chair will invoke an adjudicator—a third senior reviewer—to break the deadlock.
ISASTE is deeply committed to developmental transparency. Authors, regardless of the final outcome, will receive the consolidated, anonymized feedback from the reviewers. Authors whose papers require revisions must submit a detailed "Response to Reviewers" document explaining how each methodological concern was addressed before the manuscript can be formally accepted for publication.