Peer Review Process

Conference Proceedings in Science and Management (Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag.) publishes only peer-reviewed proceedings. Each volume of the proceedings series corresponds to a single conference. The peer review process for that volume is conducted by the volume editors of the conference under standards set by the proceedings series, and is independently cross-checked by the Editorial Advisory Board and the Editor-in-Chief, who hold final authority over acceptance.

Review Type

Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. operates a single-blind peer review model. Reviewer identities are concealed from authors. Author identities are visible to reviewers. The proceedings series does not currently offer double-blind or open review.

Review Standards

The peer review process for each volume must meet the following minimum standards:

  • Each accepted paper has been reviewed by at least two independent reviewers who are not authors of the paper, are not affiliated with the same institution as the authors, and have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the paper's content.
  • Where the two reviewers reach contradictory recommendations, a third independent reviewer is appointed to break the tie.
  • Reviewers provide substantive written feedback on the paper's scholarly merit, methodology, originality, and presentation.
  • Authors are given the opportunity to respond to reviewer comments and revise their work before final acceptance.
  • The volume editors make the volume-level recommendation based on reviewer reports and their own editorial judgment. Final authority over acceptance into Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. rests with the Editorial Advisory Board and the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers for each paper are selected by the volume editors from among researchers and academics with demonstrated expertise in the subject area of the paper. Reviewers must:

  • Hold a doctoral degree, or equivalent standing in industrial or research practice;
  • Have published in the field of the paper under review;
  • Be external to the authors' institution;
  • Declare any conflict of interest, including prior collaboration with the authors within the previous five years, and decline to review where such conflict exists;
  • Treat the manuscript as a confidential document, and not share, discuss, or reuse its contents.

Reviewers are encouraged to register an ORCID iD and to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

What Reviewers Evaluate

Reviewers are asked to assess each paper across the following dimensions:

  • Originality and contribution. Does the paper present new findings, methods, or perspectives that advance the field?
  • Methodology. Are the methods appropriate, sound, and clearly described?
  • Results and analysis. Are the results clearly presented and supported by the data and analysis?
  • Conclusions. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence presented?
  • Literature engagement. Does the paper engage with relevant prior work and cite sources accurately?
  • Clarity and presentation. Is the paper clearly written, well structured, and free from errors that impede understanding?
  • Ethics. Are there any concerns regarding research ethics, authorship, plagiarism, or data integrity?

Editorial Timelines

Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. works to the following indicative timelines. Actual durations vary with the size of a volume and the availability of reviewers.

  • Acknowledgment of a conference proposal: within five working days of receipt.
  • Editor-in-Chief decision on a conference proposal: within thirty days of receipt of complete documentation.
  • Conference-led peer review of submitted papers: typically six to twelve weeks, depending on volume size and discipline.
  • Editorial Advisory Board cross-check of a completed volume: within twenty-one days of volume submission to the proceedings series.
  • Final acceptance and DOI assignment: within fourteen days of completed cross-check.

Statement of Peer Review

Each volume of Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. is published with a Statement of Peer Review, signed by the volume editors, certifying that the papers in the volume have undergone peer review according to the standards above. The statement specifies the review model used, the number of reviewers per paper, and the acceptance rate, and is part of the volume's permanent record.

A standard Statement of Peer Review template is provided to volume editors at the proposal stage. The template is also available for download here: Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag.  Statement of Peer Review template.

Editorial Oversight

The Editor-in-Chief of Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. has final authority over the editorial standards of the proceedings series. Before accepting a conference for publication as a Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. volume, the Editor-in-Chief reviews the conference's peer review policies and the credentials of the volume editors. The Editor-in-Chief may decline to publish a volume, or to require additional review, if its peer review process does not meet the standards of the proceedings series.

After conference-led peer review is complete and a volume is submitted to Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag., the Editorial Advisory Board conducts an independent cross-check on a sample of accepted papers and on the editorial process as a whole. Where the cross-check identifies concerns, the Board may require additional review, recommend rejection of specific papers, or, in serious cases, decline to publish the volume.

Endogeny Limit

To safeguard editorial independence, the proportion of papers in any volume authored or co-authored by the volume editors, members of the Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. Editorial Advisory Board, or members of the editorial office must not exceed twenty-five percent of the total papers in the volume. Papers authored by editors are reviewed under an independent process, with the editor in question recused from the handling of their own submission.

Plagiarism Screening

All accepted papers are screened for originality using established plagiarism detection software before publication. Volumes are not published until all accepted papers have passed originality screening. The proceedings series will name the screening software in use on this page once procurement is finalized.

Research Misconduct, Corrections, and Retractions

Cases of suspected research misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication or falsification, duplicate publication, and inappropriate authorship, are addressed under the published procedures of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. reserves the right to retract published papers when misconduct is established. The full procedures for corrections, retractions, errata, and expressions of concern are set out on the Editorial Policies page.

Appeals

Authors and conference organizers who believe their work has been handled unfairly may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief at info@shoramedits.com. The full appeals procedure is set out on the Editorial Policies page.

Acknowledgments

Volume editors are required to acknowledge the reviewers who served their volume in the volume preface, with the consent of each reviewer named. Reviewers who do not wish to be named may opt out at the time of review and will not appear in the published acknowledgment.

Conf. Proc. Sci. Manag. publishes an annual list of volume editors who have served the proceedings series, in recognition of their editorial leadership.