6th International Conference on Sustainable Engineering Techniques

Reviewer Guidelines: ICSET 2025

1. Reviewer Selection & Expertise

• Qualification: Reviewers are appointed based on their verified expertise in sustainable engineering and their publication record (h-index/ORCID).
• Affiliation: We ensure a mix of local and international reviewers to provide a balanced global perspective.
• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors or have collaborated with them within the last three years.

2. Technical System: Microsoft CMT

ICSET 2025 utilizes the Microsoft Conference Management Toolkit (CMT). Reviewers must follow these steps:

1. Invitation: Accept the review invitation via the link sent to your registered email.
2. Access: Log in to the ICSET 2025 CMT Console and ensure your role is set to "Reviewer."
3. Download: Access the anonymized manuscript (PDF or Word) from the "Reviewer Console."
4. Submission: Complete the online review form. Note: CMT automatically saves drafts, but you must click "Submit" for the review to be officially recorded.

3. The Review Form (Criteria)

Reviewers are asked to provide quantitative scores (1–5) and qualitative comments for the following:

• Novelty: Does the work provide new insights or technologies?
• Technical Quality: Is the methodology sound and the data robust?
• Significance: How impactful are the results for the engineering community?
• Clarity: Is the English language and organization professional?
• Confidential Comments: A private section for editors to discuss sensitive issues like suspected plagiarism.

4. Review Rounds & Timeline

• First Round: Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to provide their initial assessment.
• Revision Phase: If "Minor" or "Major" revisions are required, authors have 10 days to resubmit.
• Second Round: The same reviewers will be invited to check the revised paper. We avoid "reviewer switching" between rounds to ensure consistency in feedback.

5. Final Decision-Making Process

The final editorial decision is a collaborative process but follows a strict hierarchy:

1. Reviewer Recommendations: Each paper receives at least two recommendations (Accept, Revision, or Reject).
2. Meta-Review (Optional): In cases of conflicting reports, a Track Chair provides a "Meta-Review" to weigh the arguments.
3. Editorial Decision: The Technical Program Committee (TPC) Chair makes the final decision based on the reviewer reports and the paper's alignment with the proceedings' quality threshold.
4. Final Notification: Authors receive the final decision alongside the anonymized reviewer comments.

1. Reviewer Conduct & Ethics

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. They must not share, cite, or use the data before the paper is officially published.
• Constructive Feedback: We ask reviewers to be "critical but kind." Instead of simply pointing out errors, provide specific suggestions on how the author can improve the work.
• AI Policy: Reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts into generative AI tools (like ChatGPT) to generate reviews, as this violates the confidentiality of the author's intellectual property.