2023 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AUTOMATICS, ROBOTICS & ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (ICARAI)

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 IEEE CrossCheck Portal. 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; If you notice any evidences leading to plagiarism suspicion, please, inform the organizers of the conference asap.

3) When evaluating, 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 (including level of English), Volume of article. Furthermore, note if the references are cited correctly in the text and mind the quantity and the quality of the sources. 

5) In the free comments to the authors, the following sequence can be followed (some or all):

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. What are the shortcomings and what is unique in 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 or too short? Does it contain too many figures, or more are recommended? Do the numbers are related to the discussion in the text?

6) After the first review
The author(s) will be able to see your review, but will not be able to identify the reviewer(s). The authors(s) will be given 7 days to reflect all your comments, remarks and suggestions in case one of the reviews is not negative (rejects the manuscript) or all the reviews are fully positive ("Accepted without changes" has been selected by all the reviewers). The authors must reflect all the reviewers' comments and attach to the original manuscript and additional page (as last) explaining the reflection and expressing their opinion. Then, the reviewers will be prompted to make their final decision, which will be limited to either "Accepted without changes" or "Rejected".

IMPORTANT! Always check your mail SPAM folder for messages from our system. Unfortunately, sometimes our messages go there.