Review Process for NEXTCOM-2017
We are going to conduct Double blind review for the articles submitted for the Conference. How we are going to conduct the review process is as following:
Step 1: Initial Assessment by Conference Chairs
At this first stage, the Conference Chairs will decide if article are suitable for the conference by asking questions such as:
- Has the author followed the conference submission guidelines?
- Is this the right conference for this article on the basis of Conference scope and tracks?
- Will the Conference participates find it interesting?
- Following Conference plagiarism policy?
Step 2: First round of Double blind peer review
The conference chairs will find and contact 3 to 5 other researchers or academics (technical committee members or form outside of the same) who are experts in the same field. They will be requested to review the article, and advise the conference chairs with their valuable comments. So, what are the reviewers are looking for? This depends on the subject area, but they will be checking that your work is:
- original or new,
- your study design and methodology are appropriate and described so that others could replicate what you've done,
- Are your results clearly and appropriately explained?
- Are your conclusions are reliable and significant?
- The work is of a high enough standard to be published in the conference proceedings.
The authors will be given the feedback about their article, telling them if any changes need to be made before it can be published. Our authors tell us that the reviewers’ comments can be extremely helpful, ensuring that the article is of a high quality. Please note the final editorial decision on a paper and the choice of who to invite to review is always at the conference chairs discretion.
Step 3: Revise and resubmit
The authors can amend their article based on the reviewers' comments and resubmitting it with changes made.
If the authors don’t want to accept all the reviewers’ comments, then the authors can include a brief explanation of why they don’t believe comments are applicable. The Conference chairs can then make an assessment, and include your explanation when the amended article is sent back to the reviewers or not.
Step 4: Accepted
and that’s it, authors made it through peer review. Next step is publication.
Peer Review Integrity
Every article submitted for publication in NEXTCOM-2017 has been through peer review; its quality, validity, and relevance assessed by independent peers within the relevant field. We believe in the integrity of peer review.
Ethical guidelines for peer reviewers
We ask all peer reviewers to make every reasonable effort to adhere to the following ethical guidelines for NEXTCOM-2017:
- Reviewers must give unbiased consideration to each manuscript submitted for consideration for publication in NEXTCOM-2017 , and should judge each on its merits, without regard to race, religion, nationality, sex, seniority, or institutional affiliation of the author(s).
- Reviewers should declare any potential conflict of interest prior to agreeing to review a manuscript, including any relationship with the author that may potentially bias their review.
- Reviewers must keep the peer-review process confidential; information or correspondence about a manuscript should not be shared with anyone outside the peer-review process.
- Reviewers should provide a constructive, comprehensive, evidenced, and appropriately substantial peer-review report.
- Reviewers must avoid making statements in their report which might be construed as impugning any person’s reputation.
- Reviewers should make all reasonable effort to submit their report and recommendation in a timely manner, informing the editor if this is not possible.