Submission: Authors submit their papers, abstracts, or proposals through an online submission system.
Initial Screening: The program chair and Technical Program Chairs (TPC) members conduct an initial review to ensure submissions meet the conference's basic requirements, such as formatting and relevance.
Peer Review: Submissions are assigned to TPC members and reviewers, who evaluate the content, quality, and relevance of the submission.
Review Feedback: Reviewers provide detailed feedback on the submission, including strengths, weaknesses, and suggestions for improvement.
Discussion and Decision: TPC members discuss the submissions, considering the review feedback, and make decisions on acceptance, rejection, or revision.
Notification: Authors are notified of the decision, along with feedback and suggestions for improvement.
Camera-Ready Submission: Accepted authors submit their revised papers, which are then prepared for publication.
Reviewing Criteria
Relevance: Alignment with the conference's themes and objectives.
Originality: Novelty and significance of the research.
Technical Quality: Soundness of methodology, analysis, and results.
Clarity: Quality of writing, organization, and presentation.
Impact: Potential impact on the field or industry.
Best Practices
Maintain transparency: Clearly communicate the reviewing process, criteria, and expectations.
Ensure diversity: Assemble a diverse reviewing committee to minimize bias and ensure comprehensive evaluations.
Provide feedback: Offer constructive feedback to authors, highlighting strengths and weaknesses.
Monitor conflicts of interest: Ensure reviewers and TPC members declare conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when necessary.
Selection & Rejection Criteria
✅ Selection Criteria:
Originality and novelty of the research
Technical accuracy and strong methodology
Relevance to electrical, automation, communication, and electronics fields
Clarity in writing, structure, and presentation
Strong experimental results or theoretical contribution
❌ Rejection Criteria:
Plagiarism or excessive similarity with existing work
Poorly structured or unclear content
Lack of technical depth or scientific contribution
Failure to address the conference’s scope and topics