Reviewing committee

All submitted papers received by the editorial office are firstly checked by the editors to determine if they are properly prepared and follow the ethical policies of the conference. The editors are responsible for deciding which of the submitted papers should be published. The editors are guided by the policies of the conference editorial team and constrained by such legal requirements as copyright infringement and plagiarism. Papers that do not fit the ethics policy or do not meet the requirements of the conference will be rejected before the peer-review process. Papers that are not properly prepared will be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.

Once a paper passes the editorial checks, it will be assigned to an independent expert for a double-blind peer-review. Judgements should be objective, reviewers should have no conflict of interest and should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.  Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.  Reviewers are asked to evaluate the paper using the review form and the may recommend to: (i) accept the paper in the current form, (ii) accept the paper with minor correction, (iii) accept the paper with major corrections, (iv) accept the paper only after corrections and repeated review, and (v) reject the paper. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will also be sent to the corresponding author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers.

The editors and reviewers should evaluate manuscripts for their intellectual content without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors. The editors´ decision to accept or reject a paper for publication should be based only on the importance of the paper, its originality and clarity, and the relevance of the study to the aim of the conference.