ECEPP

Reviewing Guidelines

Manuscripts submitted to ECEPP are reviewed by at least two experts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the external editor on whether a manuscript can be accepted, requires revisions or should be rejected.




Invitation to ECEPP reviewer database

If you are interested in reviewing articles for one or more of our conferences, please send your contact details, including your ORCID identifier, insititutional affiliation, a short CV, and 5-6 keywords in line with your expertise to editor@ecepp.org.

The managing editor of our conference will send you a notification once approved.   Prospective reviewers may also be interested in the Publons Academy, which provides training in how to conduct peer review.




Confidentiality and Anonymity


ECEPP2022 operates a system of double-blind peer review. A submitted abstract/paper is assessed by at least two reviewers.

Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the abstract, confidential. Reviewers must inform the Editorial Office if they would like a student or colleague to complete the review on their behalf.

Note that, as the reviewer, you will have access to other reviewers' reports via the online submission system after you have submitted your report.





Peer-Review and Editorial Procedure


All manuscripts sent for publication in our conferences are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts (this includes research and review articles, spontaneous submissions, and invited papers). The Managing Editor will perform an initial check of the manuscript's suitability upon receipt. The Editorial Office will then organize peer-review process performed by independent experts and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask authors for adequate revisions (with a second round of peer-review if necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by the academic editor. Accepted articles are copy-edited and English-edited.




Rating the Manuscript


Please rate the following aspects of the manuscript:

  • Originality/Novelty: Is the question original and well defined? Do the results provide an advance in current knowledge?

  • Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses and speculations carefully identified as such?

  • Quality of Presentation: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards for presentation of the results used?

  • Scientific Soundness: is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed with the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw the conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?

  • Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the conference? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? (please see the Aims and Scope of the conference)

  • Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work provide an advance towards the current knowledge? Do the authors have addressed an important long-standing question with smart experiments?

  • English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?

Manuscripts submitted to ECEPP conferences should meet the highest standards of   publication ethics:

  • Manuscripts should only report results that have not been submitted or published before, even in part.

  • Manuscripts must be original and should not reuse text from another source without appropriate citation.

  • For biological studies, the studies reported should have been carried out in accordance with generally accepted ethical research standards.



Overall Recommendation


Please provide an overall recommendation for the publication of the manuscript as follows:


  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.

  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is in principle accepted after revision based on the reviewer's comments. Authors are given five days for minor revisions.

  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point by point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer's comments cannot be revised. Usually, only one round of major revisions is allowed. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments.

  • Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper is rejected with no offer of resubmission to the conference.

Note that your recommendation is visible only to editors, not to the authors.


>
>
>
>
>
>
>