Peer Review General and Ethics of Review

The peer-review process is a critical process and it has the stringent requirement for our committee member. The care and thoroughness of comments are the foundations for the quality of a good review which requires fairness in judgment, expertise in the field, and carefully crafted comments that help authors improve their papers and work. 

Type of review: Double-blind.
Expected number of reviewers per paper: 3-5.
Time allotted reviewers for each paper reviewed: 1-3 weeks.
Minor or major revisions are accepted; Revised articles are reviewed by the initial reviewer(s); 2-4 weeks for authors to submit revisions.


1. About Review Comments.

The paper review process has two separate but equally important goals. The first is to provide guidance to the authors, and the second is to provide editors and conference organizer with the basis for presentation and publication decisions. Paper reviewers have a responsibility to read the paper carefully and then provide the authors with a clear, detailed, diplomatic, and unbiased evaluation. Avoid vague complaints and provide appropriate citations if authors are unaware of relevant work. Reviewers often begin with an overall assessment of the paper and continue by identifying the prominent strengths and weaknesses. Starting with the “big picture” helps the author frame the subsequent detailed comments. The detailed comments should focus on specific features of the paper review form. 

The process and peer reviewers must be diligent about their adherence to all procedures, follow all criteria carefully, and conduct themselves in a professional, equitable way with integrity.


2. Confidentiality.

The contents of the papers cannot be used, referenced, or included in future work by the reviewers until the review, presentation, and publication processes are complete. Until then, the information in the papers should be treated as confidential and may not be used for any purpose not related to the review process. Reviewers should never share the reviewed version of the paper, review findings, reviewer comments on papers, or deliberations on the review decisions with anyone other than the review committee and the conference staff.


3. Conflicts

A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If a conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review a paper.

If a reviewer feels unable to render an objective judgment for any reason, he or she should notify the conference staff.

Any queries, please contact us via icbdb@hksra.org.