Peer review policy

The peer review of papers published in the Highlights in Science, Engineering and Technology is managed by the organizers and proceedings editors.

The detailed procedures will vary from event to event according to the custom and practice of each community. Our publishing agreements require peer review to be undertaken in accordance with the principles outlined below. 

All organizers/editors must complete a form describing how the papers were peer reviewed. We reserve the right to request peer review reports at any time. 

All conferences are requested to adhere to the following minimum standards:

  1. Unbiased consideration is given to all papers. Papers are considered regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
  2. Authors and Editors agree to comply with our ethical policy.
  3. Submission and peer review must be conducted in English.
  4. Editors and Organizers shall only accept papers where there is clear support from the reviewers.


Conference papers must meet all the usual standards of quality. Reviewers should consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers:

  1. Technical Criteria

1.1. Scientific merit: notably scientific rigor, accuracy and correctness.

1.2. Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts.

1.3. Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing.

  1. Quality Criteria

2.1. Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?

2.2. Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results

2.3. Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?

2.4. Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

  1. Presentation Criteria

3.1. Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?

3.2. Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?

3.3. Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?

3.4. Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be removed.

3.5. Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?