Expanded 10-Step Double-Blind Peer Review Process in Scientific Conferences
1. Submission of the Abstract and Manuscript
Authors upload the title, keywords, and abstract to the conference management system. At this stage, author identification details are removed to ensure double-blind review standards.
2. Preliminary Check (Technical and Formatting Review)
The organizing committee checks formatting, templates, word limits, relevance, and ethical statements. Scientific quality is not evaluated here.
3. Assignment to the Area Editor / Scientific Committee Member
Submissions that pass preliminary screening are assigned to a field editor who decides if the work is suitable for peer review.
4. Anonymization for the Double-Blind Review
All author names, affiliations, and self-identifying statements are removed. Reviewers do not know authors; authors do not know reviewers.
5. Assignment to Expert Reviewers
Each submission is assigned to at least two reviewers based on expertise, academic background, and reviewer performance.
6. Scientific Evaluation by Reviewers
Reviewers evaluate originality, methodology, relevance, contribution, writing quality, and practical significance. They recommend revision, acceptance, or rejection.
7. Editorial Assessment of Reviewer Reports
Editors assess reviewer comments for clarity, fairness, and consistency. If needed, additional reviews or a third reviewer are assigned.
8. Author Revision and Response Letter
Reviewer comments are shared with the authors. Authors revise the manuscript and upload a response-to-reviewers document explaining all changes.
9. Re-evaluation of the Revised Submission
Editors—and sometimes reviewers—assess the revised version. Multiple revision rounds may occur depending on reviewer recommendations.
10. Final Decision: Acceptance or Rejection
The conference committee makes the final decision. Authors receive acceptance/rejection letters, and accepted papers are added to the program.