ISPES-2027

The primary objective of peer review is to help authors improve their research, refine their methodology, and enhance the clarity and validity of their results. To ensure consistency and high standards, the Technical Program Committee (TPC) has formulated the following guidelines. Kindly adhere to them carefully.

All reviews must strictly follow these principles:

• Integrity and Ethical Conduct
• Confidentiality
• Impartiality
• Scientific Rigor
• Constructive Evaluation

1.   You must immediately decline the review if:

• You can reasonably infer authorship from the work reported or by any means.
• You are from the same institution as any author.
• You have collaborated with the author(s) in the past 3 years.
• You have a personal, financial, supervisory, or competitive relationship with the author(s).

2.   Confidentiality and Data Protection

• Manuscripts under review are confidential documents.
• You must not share, distribute, upload, or store the manuscript on external platforms.
• You must not use any part of the content for personal research, proposals, or publications.
• You must not discuss the paper with colleagues without TPC approval.

3.   Strict Prohibition of AI Tools

• The use of AI systems (including but not limited to ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, or similar generative tools) to generate, rewrite, summarize, or improve review comments is strictly prohibited.
• AI systems may store or process confidential manuscript content, violating IEEE data protection and confidentiality standards.

4.   Originality Verification:

All rejection recommendations must be supported with clear technical justification. The submitted papers must clearly state: the problem being solved, engineering or computational advances to the state-of-the-art, new results obtained, and their significance. The authors are instructed to adhere to the following guidelines strictly.

Conduct a preliminary online search (e.g., using the paper title) to detect duplicate or previously published work.

If a direct match is found, carefully compare the submissions.

Papers that are identical or substantially similar to previously published work (including arXiv preprints, as they violate double blind review policy) may be recommended for rejection with strong justification.

5.   Constructive Scientific Criticism:

• All criticism must be Objective, Evidence-based, Technically justified, Free of personal remarks.
• Reviewers must not attempt to delay, suppress, or block publication due to personal disagreement or competition.

6.   Thorough Evaluation:

• All sections of the review form must be completed.
• Reviews consisting of short, generic, or superficial comments are unacceptable.
• Reviews must reflect careful reading of the manuscript.
• You may be reassigned the revised version after rebuttal submission. You are expected to verify whether your comments were properly addressed.

7.   Review Sections:

• Comments to Authors: Constructive feedback visible to authors.

Guidelines for Providing Review Comments

Please write 3-5 sentences for each section listed below. Retain the headings while drafting your review.

7.1. Contribution of the Paper

Briefly describe the novelty, relevance, and alignment with conference scope.

7.2. Main Strengths

Evaluate:

• Originality
• Technical depth
• Correctness
• Experimental rigor

7.3. Main Weaknesses

Identify (if any):

• Methodological flaws
• Insufficient validation
• Unsupported claims
• Missing comparisons
• Clarity gaps affecting technical understanding

7.4. Clarity and Organization

Evaluate the following components:

a.   Abstract (Concise, clear, within 250 words)

b.   Keywords (5-6 relevant and specific terms)

c.   Introduction (Strong motivation and problem statement)

d.   Literature Review (Comprehensive and up-to-date references)

e.   Methodology (Clear explanation of proposed approach)

f.   Results and Discussion (Logical interpretation of findings)

g.   Validation of Results (Experimental rigor, benchmarking, statistical validation)

h.   Conclusion (Clear summary and future directions)

i.   References (Relevance, completeness, IEEE formatting compliance)

8.   English Language Quality

Comment on language only if it significantly affects the technical understanding. Reviews must not focus solely on grammar.

9.   Detailed Constructive Comments

Provide actionable suggestions to improve the manuscript.

10.   Overall Opinion

State your recommendation (Strong Accept / Accept / Borderline / Reject / Strong Reject).

The recommendation must be consistent with the technical comments provided above. Clearly and concisely explain the primary technical reasons that influenced your decision and score. The justification must:

If recommending Strong Accept or Accept, clearly articulate the significant contributions and strengths that warrant acceptance.

The score and recommendation must align with your written evaluation. Inconsistent reviews may be subject to scrutiny by the TPC Chairs.

11.   Ethical and Professional Conduct

Reviewers shall:

• Maintain professional tone at all times.
• Avoid biased or inflammatory language.
• Evaluate the work-not the authors.
• Respect diversity of approaches and methodologies.

12.   Review Quality Monitoring

The TPC Chairs reserve the right to:

• Edit or expand insufficient reviews.
• Override vague or unsupported recommendations.
• Request clarification from reviewers.
• Remove reviews that are overly brief (1-2 generic lines) or lack substantive evaluation.

Reviewers will be notified if modifications are made.

13.   Declaration of Acknowledgment

By submitting the review, the reviewer confirms:

The evaluation was conducted independently and ethically.

IMPORTANT DATES

• First Call for papers: 14/12/2026

• Second Call for papers: 15/02/2027
  

• Last Date for Submission: 05/04/2027

• Notification for Acceptance: 24/05/2027

• Camera-Ready Paper Submission: 14/06/2027

• Last Date for Registration: 30/06/2027