Back to Submission
BLIND REVIEW & ETHICAL POLICY
At the ATLAS International Design Conference, 2023 (AIDC, 2023), we are devoted to the timely examination and presentation/publication of completely authorised papers. To ensure high-quality publication, all contributions go through an extensive review procedure (minimum 3 reviewers will evaluate). The blind peer review and ethical policy have the following qualities:
- Parallel submissions of the same Research Paper to a different Conference, Journals or Symposium will not be accepted.
- Papers with content outside the general purview of the sub-themes will not be reviewed.
- In accordance with AIDC, 23 policy submissions will be assessed by 3 experts as suggested by the organizing committee.
- The organising committee of AIDC 2023 bases its decision(s) on presentation and publication on the reports provided by the experts. The organising committee of AIDC 2023 reserves the right to make the final decisions. The authors of rejected papers will be quickly notified.
- All the submitted papers are considered as confidential documents. We expect our Board of Reviewing Editors and reviewers to treat the papers with utmost confidentiality.
- Editors and Reviewers must ensure the papers meet all the requirements mentioned in the general instructions.
- Editors and reviewers engaged in the review procedure must state any conflict of interest arising from direct competition, collaboration, or other ties with any of the authors and should withdraw themselves from situations where such conflicts prevent objective evaluation. The utilization of privileged information or ideas received via peer review for competitive benefit is prohibited.
- Review reports should be made available on request to the corresponding Editor if required.
- The peer review process is confidential, and the reviewers' and authors' identities cannot be revealed to each other.
- Security breaches or research results from others, as well as data manipulation, misrepresentation, or biased reporting with the purpose to mislead or deceive, is unethical. The findings of research would be documented and required to be filed so that they can be analyzed and reviewed. The information should be stored for a considerable time as devised by the organising committee after publication and made available upon request. Exceptions may be appropriate in some cases to safeguard privacy, ensure patent protection, or for other similar reasons.
- Everyone who has made a major contribution must be given the opportunity to be recognized as an author. Those who have helped with the project should also be recognized as contributors and/or co-authors. All authors, both academic and corporate, should report a complete disclosure of their current institutional affiliations in their articles.
- If there is a use of human subjects or human medical data in the work, the author should ensure the work described is executed in accordance with The Code of Ethics of the World Medical Association (Declaration of Helsinki) for experiments on humans: Clinical Trial Results, Reporting Clinical Trials, and Registration of Clinical Trials- must be followed.
General Instructions for Reviewers:
Some general instructions regarding the review report are for consideration. Please find these below
- It's important to read the whole article and any extra material that comes with it. Pay attention to the methods, figures, and tables.
- Please ensure that your comments are detailed so that the authors can comprehend and resolve your concerns.
- Please keep your tone impartial and concentrate on providing constructive comments that will assist the authors in improving their work.
- Review reports should contain the following:
- A concise synopsis (one short paragraph) describing the purpose of the article, its primary contributions, and its strongest points.
- In the article, we highlight areas of weakness, the hypothesis's testability, and methodological errors, if any.
- Reviews include comments on the completeness of the review topic addressed, the relevancy of the review topic, the knowledge gaps that have been detected, the appropriateness of the references, and other factors.
- Inaccuracies in the text or sentences that are confusing are pointed out by specific comments referring to line numbers, tables, or figures. In addition, these comments should be focused on the scientific substance rather than on any spelling, formatting, or English language issues, as these issues can be corrected at a later time by our internal team if necessary.
- If reviewers become aware of scientific misconduct, fraud, plagiarism, or any other unethical behavior in connection with the paper, they should promptly notify the in-house editor.
Please see the following documents for additional information on how to write a critical review:
COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics.