Policies for reviewers

Identity

Reviewers must be experts in their respective fields, capable of providing unbiased and objective evaluations of manuscripts. To maintain impartiality and prevent conflicts of interest, reviewers should not be:

• Affiliated with the same institution as any of the manuscript's co-authors
• Associated with the funding body of the manuscript under review
• Identified through personal email accounts (e.g., Gmail, Yahoo, Hotmail) if an institutional affiliation cannot be confirmed through a basic verification process (involving a search of the reviewer's name, department, and institution). In such cases, the editor may request additional verification.

At submission, the series enables authors to recommend or oppose specific reviewers at the time of submission, balancing author preferences with editorial discretion.

Peer-review process

Editors or Editorial Board members submitting manuscripts will have their reviews overseen by alternative Board members to ensure impartiality; the submitting individual will not participate in decision-making.

By agreeing to review, reviewers commit to adhering to the highest standards of publication ethics as outlined by COPE. If a manuscript is not suitable for this series, it may be referred to another series within the network; associated reviews and evaluator details may be transferred accordingly.

EWA Publishing maintains confidentiality throughout the peer-review process. Reviewers must not disclose details of a manuscript or related communications unless officially released.

Editorial conflict of interest

Submissions by Editors or Editorial Board members are subject to the same rigorous review process, managed by alternative members of the Board to eliminate any potential conflict of interest. The involved Editor/Board member will abstain from any decision-making related to their submission.

Standards of objectivity

When recommending citations of their own or associates' work, reviewers must ensure that such recommendations are strictly for the purpose of enhancing the manuscript's scientific merit. The intent must not be to increase personal citation counts or to unduly elevate the visibility of their or their associates' work.

Peer Review Policy

Policy Overview

To ensure the academic rigor, originality, and high quality of research findings published in the proceedings, all submitted research articles, reviews, and most other article types must undergo a rigorous and impartial peer review process. This proceedings adopts a single-blind peer review model, wherein reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, but authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities. Some series or conferences within EWA Publishing may adopt a double-blind peer review model, as specified in their respective submission guidelines.

The core objective is to select manuscripts demonstrating significant academic value, innovation, and scientific reliability through independent expert assessment, while providing authors with constructive feedback for improvement.

Peer Review Process Steps

The entire review process follows a standardized procedure, as outlined below:

Step 1: Initial editorial check

• Format and scope compliance
• Originality check (similarity threshold as defined by the series)
• Completeness of materials

Manuscripts failing the initial check may be returned or rejected.

Step 2: Assessment by Academic Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial check are assigned to an Academic Editor in the relevant field, who assesses academic potential and decides whether to proceed to peer review. If a conflict of interest exists, handling is transferred to another editor.

Step 3: Peer review execution

The Academic Editor invites at least two independent experts to review the manuscript based on:

• Novelty and academic significance
• Methodology and scientific rigour
• Results and conclusions
• Presentation and structure

Step 4: Editorial Decision and Author Communication

The Academic Editor synthesises reviewer comments and communicates one of the following decisions:

• Acceptance without revision (rare)
• Acceptance after minor revisions
• Reconsideration after major revisions
• Rejection

Step 5: Revision and Re-review

For manuscripts requiring revision, authors must submit a revised version with a point-by-point response letter and clearly highlight changes. The revised manuscript may be reassessed by the Academic Editor or original reviewers.