1. Peer-Review Method

• Double-blind peer-review applied to all submissions
• Identities of authors and reviewers are concealed to prevent bias
• No paper is reviewed by individuals affiliated with an author’s institution

2. Reviewer Requirements

• Minimum of two qualified independent reviewers per paper
• Reviewers possess a PhD or ≥10 years of relevant R&D experience
• Reviewers selected from multiple countries to ensure diversity and avoid regional bias
• Subject alignment ensured through expertise matching with paper keywords

Justification

Multiple reviewer validation and controlled reviewer–paper mapping increase confidence
in decision quality and strengthen the rigor of the evaluation process.

3. Reviewer Workload

• Maximum of 10 papers assigned per reviewer
• Workload distribution monitored by the Technical Program Committee (TPC)
• Controls ensure balanced assignments and adequate attention to detail

4. Review Criteria

• Each paper is evaluated using a structured scoring rubric
• Assessment criteria are applied consistently across all submissions

1. Originality & Novelty
2. Technical Quality & Methodological Rigor
3. Reproducibility of Results
4. Relevance to Tracks & Practical Applicability
5. Clarity of Presentation, Structure & Language
6. Ethical & Responsible AI Deployment

Each reviewer provides:

• Numerical score
• Qualitative comments
• Mandatory revision recommendations when applicable

5. Decision Rules