3 - 5 June 2022

Accompanying events
Author's kit and instructions
Plenary speakers
Conference fee
Instructions for reviewers
Past events

1) After receiving an invitation, each reviewer visits the Conference web page and enters the username and password in the Login field from the list on the left side of the window. At the first time visit of the internal homepage, for greater security, it is requested to change the automatically generated password. Then, from the Your reviews menu you can visualize the data about the author/authors (single-blind evaluation method is applied), title, abstract, the full text of the paper, the section - thematic area and field. There is an option to decline the preparation of a review report, or start completing the reviewer's form;
2) Prior to be reviewed, each manuscript has been checked for matches (plagiarism check) by the Associate Editor using the iThenticate electronic authentication system ( If necessary, the result of this check can be provided to the reviewers to compare the full text of each source paper or Web page with the submitted manuscript;
3) When evaluate, the reviewers serve to a great extent as 'mentors of the authors', helping to review the manuscript until each one is suitable for publication in the proceedings. The additional and critical remarks and recommendations are essential to the process. The aim is to help authors to identify the strengths of their manuscripts as well as to identify the weaknesses;
4) An electronic form has been created to support the work of the reviewers. The form contains quantitative evaluations about Importance of the contributions, Originality of contributions and ideas, Quality of Presentation, Volume of article. 

5) In the free comments to the authors the following sequence can be followed:
a) Start by summarizing the paper with your own words. Is the topic appropriate for the potential readers of the Proceeding? Why or why not?
b) Systematize a list of specific comments. Which aspects of the paper were strong? What needs clarification or more detail? Is it well written?
c) List the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript. Clearly state the goals, contributions, and limitations of the manuscript.
d) Check that sufficient research results and evidences have been provided to support the author's claims.
e) Confirm that the information provided in the paper is up-to-date, accurate and consistent.
f) ) Cite published papers, give the title, page numbers and make a direct reference to the specific materials under analysis.
g) Suggest comments on tables, figures and diagrams. Is the article too long? Does it contain too many figures? Do the numbers are related to the discussion in the text?

C. Check the format of the submitted manuscript

It is checked whether the submitted manuscript complies with and to what extent it adheres to the template provided to the authors, which is available on the website of the journal. Each manuscript should be up to 8 pages (and not less than 4) long and contain information about the authors, abstract, keywords, clearly separated (with subheadings) introductory part, part with the methods used, possibly an experiment or numerical example, final part with a description of claims for scientific contributions, references and acknowledgements.

Last changed on 18.03.2022, 09:40:01
This page will be accessible until 01.12.2045
Other conferences/journals in the Conference/Journal Management System

Conference Management System © Technical University of Sofia 2012 - 2022.
Design by Assoc. Prof. Dr. Rossen Radonov, MEng.