Peer Review Policy

Last updated 7 October 2026

Scope and minimum standard

Research contributions published in SETSCI Conference Proceedings are peer reviewed. For proceedings published from 2019 onward, each full paper, abstract, poster contribution and other peer-reviewed scholarly research contribution accepted for publication has been evaluated by at least two reviewers before acceptance. Two is the minimum, not an exact total; a contribution may receive more than two reviews. Reviewer recommendations are obtained before the final acceptance decision.

Editorials and prefaces are editorial content and are not subject to peer review. The minimum-two-reviewer standard is not automatically attributed to proceedings published before 2019. For an earlier volume, consult its documented review statement; where a reviewer count or review itself is not established, neither is inferred.

Who conducts review

Each conference's scientific or program committee or responsible editorial body manages the review. It selects reviewers with appropriate subject expertise, assigns submissions, manages conflicts, obtains assessments and recommendations, requests revisions where needed and makes or supports acceptance and rejection decisions. The responsible body retains appropriate review records. SETSCI does not run submissions or conduct a second review of individual contributions; it may require compliance with this standard and request evidence of the declared process where necessary. Before publication, organizers provide the accepted work and a statement describing the process used for that volume.

The review statement

The statement should identify the review model where documented, the committee's role, how reviewers were assigned, the criteria used and how acceptance decisions were reached. A conference may use a single-anonymized, double-anonymized or another documented scholarly peer-review model. The model may vary between conferences, but for peer-reviewed research contributions in proceedings published from 2019 onward the minimum of at least two reviewers does not change. No model is inferred when the historical record does not specify one; readers should consult the peer-review tab of the relevant volume for the process actually documented.

Assessment criteria

Reviewers should judge academic merit and relevance to the event. They should consider the clarity of the research question and abstract, the appropriateness of methods, the coherence of results and conclusions, originality, use of relevant literature, and the quality of figures, tables and writing. Constructive comments should explain the reasons for a recommendation.

Fairness and confidentiality

Reviewers must be chosen for relevant expertise and must not have conflicts that could reasonably compromise their judgment. Editors and reviewers must disclose conflicts, protect unpublished material and avoid using privileged access for personal advantage. An editor with a relevant conflict should not make the decision on that contribution. Allegations of manipulated or inadequate review are assessed under the Publication Ethics policy.