You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Proceedings
  • Editorial
  • Open Access

16 September 2025

Statement of Peer Review †

,
,
and
1
CEGOT, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, University of Porto, 4150-564 Porto, Portugal
2
ISTAR, University Institute of Lisbon (ISCTE-IUL), Av. Forças Armadas, 1649-026 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
All proceeding papers published in this volume were presented at the XVIII International Seminars on Overarching Issues of the European Area, Porto, Portugal, 23–26 May 2024.
This article belongs to the Proceedings XVIII International Seminars on Overarching Issues of the European Area
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.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to all the reviewers for their invaluable support in reviewing the conference papers and the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.