Peer Review Policy - Fourth International Conference on Applied Data Science and Smart Systems

We are committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic publishing through a rigorous and fair peer review process. Our policy is designed to ensure that all accepted papers make a significant contribution to the scientific literature and are of excellent quality.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

We operate a double-blind peer review process. This means that the identities of both the author(s) and the reviewer(s) are kept confidential during the review period. This approach helps to minimize bias and ensures that manuscripts are judged solely on their content.

Initial Screening by TPC Chairs (Desk Reject Phase)

Upon submission, all papers undergo an initial screening by the Technical Program Committee (TPC) chairs. This crucial first step assesses manuscripts against fundamental criteria to determine if they proceed to full peer review. Papers may be desk rejected at this stage if they fail to meet any of the following:

Formatting: Adherence to specified formatting guidelines.
Plagiarism: Absence of plagiarism or significant overlap with previously published work.
Language: Sufficient clarity and correctness of English to convey scientific meaning.
Novelty: Presence of a new perspective, idea, or result, even if it's a new explanation of a familiar topic or a comprehensive review.
Scope: Relevance of the paper's content to the conference themes and scope.

Comprehensive Peer Review Criteria

Papers that pass the initial screening are then subjected to a double-blind peer review by expert referees. Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript against the following minimum criteria Contribution:

Does the article make a positive contribution to the scientific literature?
What would a reader gain from it?
Contribution does not solely require new or unpublished results; it can include: New explanations of familiar topics; Excellent descriptions or explanations of complex subjects; Tutorials or review articles; Useful or interesting background information; Enjoyable and informed historical perspectives or overviews.
Substance: The article must be a complete work, going beyond a mere abstract. One-page, abstract-only articles will be rejected.
⁠Merit: The work must demonstrate scientific rigor, accuracy, and correctness in its methodology, results, and conclusions.
Originality: The article must be previously unpublished and solely the work of the author(s).
Abstract: The abstract must be a sufficient, standalone summary of the paper, clearly outlining its goals, key results, and conclusions. It should convey sufficient understanding when read in isolation.
Title: The title must accurately and adequately describe the article's nature and content.
Conclusions: Conclusions must be reasonable, well-supported by the presented results, or logically derived from the ideas and concepts discussed.
Clarity and Conciseness: Ideas must be clearly expressed, readable, and easily understandable by the intended readership.
English Usage: Correct and appropriate English is essential to effectively convey the science, intent, meaning, or purpose of the paper.

Post-Review Process and Author Rebuttals

After peer review, the TPC chairs will meticulously review all comments from the referees. Only upon their approval will notifications (acceptance, rejection, or requests for revisions) be sent to the authors. For papers requiring revisions, authors are expected to submit a comprehensive rebuttal letter along with their revised manuscript. This letter should detail how each reviewer's comment has been addressed, providing clear and concise explanations for any points not incorporated.