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: double-blind;
• Conference submission management system: Conference Email;
• Number of submissions sent for review: 23;
• Number of submissions accepted for publication: 21;
• Acceptance rate: 91.3%;
• Average number of reviews per paper: 0.5;
• Total number of reviewers involved: 12;
• Any additional information on the review process: Our approach to manuscript review follows a double-masked process, ensuring that neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities, thus minimising bias and promoting impartial evaluation.

Each paper submitted was evaluated by experts in the relevant field, based on the following criteria:

• Originality: Contribution to the existing body of knowledge, novelty of data, and innovative approaches.
• Relevance to conference themes: Alignment with the topics and objectives of the event and proceedings.
• Scientific and methodological rigour: Soundness of the research design, validity of the methods, appropriateness of the analyses, and reproducibility.
• Clarity and coherence of presentation: Logical flow, quality of writing, adequacy of figures/tables, and whether results support conclusions.
• Contribution to the field: Potential impact on theoretical, empirical, or applied research.
• Quality of references: Proper citation and use of up-to-date and relevant literature.

Following the review process, decisions included acceptance, minor, or major revisions, with final acceptance contingent on satisfactory response to reviewers’ comments. All revised papers were re-evaluated before publication.