Paper Review

Peer-reviewing is of vital importance to ensure the scientific quality of conference papers. Papers submitted to CFCTCC are subject to transparent, unprejudiced and efficient peer review, which is carried out by dedicated editors (assumed by Program Chair, Program Co-Chair and committee members appointed by Conference Chair) and reviewers.

The editorial process of a paper consists of two parts: Initial Check and Peer Review. Note that, only full paper will be assigned for peer review. Abstracts submitted to CFCTCC are assessed by the editor to decide whether accept for the conference presentation.

The paper will be sent to an editor for initial check. Once passing the initial check, it will be assigned to two reviewers of the relevant research areas for peer review. A minimum of two reviewers will carefully review the manuscript and report their recommendations to the editor. After authors’ revisions (if requested by the editor), the editor will make the ultimate acceptance or rejection decision for the paper.

During the editorial process, conference support team take the responsibility of coordination between the publisher and authors, copyediting work and other necessary publication support.

Ethics of Review

Confidentiality

Reviewers need to keep all peer review documents confidential, not to reveal any information about the manuscripts to anyone unless preauthorized by the editor.

The contents, ideas of the papers cannot be used, referenced, or included in the works of the reviewers prior to publication. Until then, the information in the papers should be treated as confidentiality and must not be used for any potential purposes uncorrelated to the review process.

Anonymity

When reviewing a manuscript on double-blind basis, reviewers should be careful not to reveal the identity to the authors.

Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If the conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review the paper. The specific conflicts may be related to the following situations:

   The reviewer is the author or co-author of the paper.

   The reviewer works in the same institute/affiliation of one of the authors.

   The reviewer is the supervisor, adviser of one of the authors.

   The reviewer’s unpublished work is studying the same issue and used the same research approaches.

   The reviewer recognizes the authors of the paper.

The assignments are trying to avoid most conflicts, but if you recognize that your reviewing will be related to the conflict of rights, please turn down the paper and write back the refusing mail for the request.