Statement of Peer Review

In submitting conference proceedings to Proceedings, the volume editors of the proceedings certify to the publisher that all papers published in this volume have been subjected to peer review administered by the volume editors. Reviews were conducted by expert referees to the professional and scientific standards expected of a proceedings journal.

• Type of peer review: single-blind, meaning the authors’ identities are disclosed to reviewers, while the reviewers’ identities remain confidential to the authors.
• Conference submission management system: Conftool and email.
• Number of submissions sent for review: 39.
• Number of submissions accepted: 34.
• Acceptance rate (number of submissions accepted/number of submissions received): 87.2%.
• Average number of reviews per paper: 2.
• Total number of reviewers involved: 37.
• Description of the process of peer review and/or editorial oversight of all accepted content (detailed criteria, policy of peer review, etc.):

• Step 1: Upon submission, academic editors conduct an initial review to ensure each paper meets fundamental standards, including language quality, figure and table clarity, and overall adherence to submission guidelines.
• Step 2: Papers are assigned to at least two reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to provide both quantitative and qualitative assessments. They rate each paper on a scale from 1 to 10, where 10 indicates high quality and a strong recommendation for acceptance. Reviewers are requested to provide constructive comments, focusing on the following criteria:

○

Writing Quality: Evaluate the clarity, conciseness, grammar, and logical flow of the text to ensure the paper is well written and accessible.

○

Figures and Tables: Verify that all figures and tables are properly placed, clearly labeled, relevant to the content, and enhance the reader’s understanding. Visual elements should be of high quality and contribute meaningfully to the paper.

○

Methodological Rigor and Results Interpretation: Assess the correctness and robustness of the methodology, as well as the accuracy and appropriateness of the results interpretation.

• Step 3: The academic editors review all comments and scores from the reviewers. Papers receiving low scores with negative feedback may be rejected at this stage. Papers with potential are returned to the authors with requests for revision, based on the reviewers’ comments.
• Step 4: Authors are requested to submit a revised version of their paper along with a point-by-point response to each comment. The academic editors then review the revised manuscript to ensure all feedback has been addressed. If any minor issues remain, the paper is returned to the authors for final adjustments before acceptance.