CALL FOR REVIEWERS
To join us as a reviewer, you will enjoy the following Reviewer Benefits:
- Refresh your knowledge
- Gain some experience in that field
- Free to tour around Qingdao after the conference
- Enjoy a discount for your conference registration fee
- Be a potential candidate of Technical Program Committee for the next conference
We call for reviewers; if you are interested in the review, please send your CV to firstname.lastname@example.org.
PURPOSE OF PEER-REVIEW
Peer-reviewing is a critical process for scientific paper publication. The reviewers are responsible for ensuring scientific equality, verification, and high standard.
The research papers should be peer-reviewed by at least two expert reviewers before acceptance. And the revised papers should go through the second peer-reviewing if it is necessary. Thus these review comments on the papers should help the authors improve the paper content, structure, and language.
REVIEW INVITATION RELATED REQUIREMENTS
A. Matching with your research field
The conference secretary will assign the papers to you who may not know your research field intimately, but only know your research field in a broader domain. And the papers appear to be not matched well with your research field. At such conditions, you can recommend other experts or inform the secretary that the paper is beyond your research field.
B. Time available to review the papers
Reviewing one article is quite time-consuming; it takes about 3-6 hours to review a paper properly. Typically, the review period is 1-2 weeks; you can review the paper when you are available. For one paper, at least two review reports will be sufficient; thus if you have finished the reviewing, please update your review report on time or send it by email to the secretary. If you delay updating the review report or couldn’t finish it on time, please let the secretary know as soon as you can and if possible, advise an alternative reviewer(s).
C. Potential conflicts of interest
The reviewers should not be in the same affiliation or institute with the author(s), or have any other connection with the author(s).
POINTS TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW
For each reviewer, there is a specific review account; please remember your username and password. If you are unable to login to it, please contact email@example.com.
When you log in to the review system, you will see a list of papers pending for review, and there are one or more papers pending for your review.
You can download the full paper and the review form on this page. Sometimes, the papers may be only an abstract because some authors would like to present an oral or poster presentation, and they submit the abstract for acceptance. You are welcome to inform us if the paper(s) could be accepted for presentation or not.
To help the author improve the paper quality and guide them for future paper preparation, please illustrate your points and comments in the review form or the manuscript directly using the track change in Microsoft Word.
Normally you would be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following:
• Within scope
The (AES2E 2021) topics cover Environmental Science and Energy Engineering. All these papers should be within the scope of AES2E 2021, and you can visit detailed topics at Call for Paper.
The research papers should be of novelty and interest to International Readers. Already published papers, online publications, or formally printed publications are not acceptable. The online publication includes your institute website, or any other media coverage. If the research has been covered previously, even by the author himself, the similarity should not be more than 5%.
For conference proceedings papers, the paper should lay out according to the template, which could be downloaded on the call for papers page. Or if your paper is intended for publication in a Journal, the paper should be laid out clearly as well. Please consider each element in turn:
Title: Is the title concise and clearly describes the paper? If you think the title is not appropriate, you may advise the change of another one.
Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the paper?
Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately and clearly state the problem being investigated?
Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article clarify what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
Figures and Tables: Are they an important part? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g., bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
Results: Is it laid out and in a logical sequence. Please consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct?
Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claim(s) in this section supported by the results? Do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
Language: Is the English professional? You may correct the text's language by using Track change of Microsoft Word or list this in the review report and ask the author to ask help from professionals.
Peer review is essential to the reliable communication of science, and we would like to acknowledge all the reviewers who have contributed a lot to the AES2E 2021 conference. Their assistance, comments, and suggestions help authors improve the quality of their papers and further the excellence and integrity of the conference.