Conference Policies

Peer Review Process

Publishing of conference papers is conditioned by a successful double blind peer-review. Each conference paper is reviewed by internal or external reviewer chosen by Conference Committee. The conference paper can be published in the case of supporting recommendation. Reviewers are chosen from a number of experts on the basis of their proven qualification in the area discussed in the conference paper. None of the reviewers is allowed to be a member of staff of the same institution as the author or co-author of the submitted paper.

The review procedure has two stages:
The first stage is done by the editor or by the assigned conference session chairman. The editor is authorized to reject the submission or to recommend necessary changes if the paper does not meet the basic criteria for submitted papers (i.e. if it does not respect formal criteria for writing). The first review process usually does not take more than 4 weeks.

The reviewer’s report consists of the following parts:

  1. A review for authors prepared in a standard form enabling (detailed) comments
  2. A confidential report to the editorial board (not required; not disclosed to authors).

The reviewer’s decision can be:

  1. To accept (without changes)
  2. To accept with minor changes (the reviewer states what changes are suggested)
  3. To reject (the reviewer states what the reasons for rejection are)

The final decision of accepting, revising or rejecting the paper is taken by the Conference Committee.

All the papers are subject to copyediting.


Archive Access Policy

The presentations that make up the current and archived conferences on this site have been made open access and are freely available for viewing, for the benefit of authors and interested readers.