Review Process

Review and Evaluation Process

All reviews are conducted under a double-blind policy and managed by the Scientific Committee.

1) Initial Screening

Each submitted abstract or full paper undergoes an initial screening to verify:

• Alignment with ICSEST-2026 conference themes and scope
• Technical quality, clarity, and academic writing standard
• Plagiarism similarity compliance
• Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines

Possible outcomes:

• Pass: Forwarded to the Scientific/Technical Committee and reviewers assigned
• Resubmission Required: Authors receive revision instructions
• Rejection: Notification of non-acceptance is issued

2) Reviewers Decision

Following peer review, one of the following decisions is communicated to the authors:

• Acceptance: Email notification with publication, registration, and presentation details.
• Revision Required: Authors receive reviewer comments and modification instructions.
• Rejection: Email notification of non-acceptance.

3) Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers assess submissions based on:

• Technical depth and adequacy of analysis
• Originality and contribution to the field
• Organization, clarity, and presentation quality
• Practical relevance and overall robustness

4) Finalization

Upon acceptance:

• Authors complete registration and submit camera-ready files.
• Editorial checks are conducted for ethics, formatting, and metadata accuracy.
• Papers are scheduled for presentation and queued for proceedings or partner journal consideration.