Menu Close

Guidelines for the reviewer

The conference articles are reviewed by experts (researchers) in the research field who have had publications in the same subject area for the last three years.
During the review process, the reviewers must follow the principles of professional ethics.
The review is confidential. Reviewers are notified that the articles sent to them are confidential and the intellectual property of the authors. Articles may only be shown or negotiated with those authorized by the editorial board.
According to the requirements of the IEEE Association and the holding of the conference, articles are accepted if the following components are present: the article must have an engineering direction. Work can be in related areas but using IT technologies in various fields (what IT solutions and technologies are used to solve problems in another area, methods or models for solving these problems with an applied nature) or articles that include an experiment (how an experiment was conducted, input and output parameters, diagrams and real data and a specific result of the experiment).
Basic review articles are not allowed. Also, articles of pedagogical, philological, and humanitarian directions cannot be accepted by the community, as they do not correspond to the profile of the conference.
The structure of a scientific article should include a title, abstract, keywords, introduction, materials and methods, main part (results, discussion), conclusion, and list of references.
When evaluating the article, the reviewer takes into account the following: 
– consistency of the article’s topic with the conference subject; 
– the abstract’s information value and sufficiency;
– novelty and significance of the results; 
– validity and correctness of the methods applied in the research; 
– a sufficiency and completeness of literature citations on the research topic. The reviewer’s tasks include the identification of publication ethics violations which require expert evaluation;
– the use of relevant literature on the research topic;
– the correctness of conclusions and arguments;
– the sufficiency and justification of illustrative material and tables;
– the correctness of the material’s form, and presentation style.
-language quality (technical English).
As a result of the article review, the reviewer should give a detailed answer, choosing one of the following options: 
– «Accepted» – to recommend the article for publication as presented (without any corrections);
– «Accepted with minor revision» – to recommend the article for publication with minor (technical) corrections;
– «Revision required» – to recommend the article for publication after major revision;
– «Decline» – to reject the article.