Peer Reviewing Guidelines

Peer review is an essential part of the publication process, and it ensures that AIAI Conference maintains the highest quality standards for its published papers. All manuscripts submitted to the Conference are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by at least 2 academic referees. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the quality of the manuscript and to provide a recommendation to the Program Committee Chairs on whether a manuscript should be accepted, requires revisions, or should be rejected.

General Instructions

On behalf of AIAI Program Committee Chairs, we propose some general instructions regarding the review report for your consideration below.

  • The review report must be prepared in English.
  • Read the whole article as well as the supplementary material, if there is any, paying close attention to the figures, tables, data, and methods.
  • The review should critically analyze the article as a whole, but also specific sections and the key concepts presented in the article.
  • The reviewers’ comments are detailed and clarified, so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points they raise.
  • Reviewers must not recommend citation of work by themselves (self-citations), close colleagues, another author, when it is not clearly necessary to improve the quality of the manuscript under review. However, they may provide additional citations that he authors should take into considerations in order to increase the quality of their manuscripts.
  • The reviewers should use a neutral tone and focus on providing constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. Derogatory comments should be omitted.
  • Reviewers must not use AI or AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) to review submissions or to generate peer review reports. Reviewers are solely responsible for the content of their reports and the use of AI technologies for this purpose constitutes a breach of peer review confidentiality.
  • Reviewer must meet the deadlines of the reviewing process.

Review Structure

The Review is recommended to contain the following:
  1. A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
  2. A brief section that takes into consideration if the manuscript has the proper structure (e.g. Introduction, Literature Review, Dataset, Methodology, Experiments, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References), if a section is missing or not, if the paper is formatted according to the Springer Lecture Notes in Computer Science (LNCS)series format (if for example the manuscript is written in two columns, etc.)
  3. A small section commenting the English Language. Is the English language appropriate and understandable? Are there any abbreviations that are not described or they described later in the text? Are there any major spelling or grammar errors?
  4. An extended section analyzing the content of the manuscript. These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond:
    • Highlights areas of weakness
    • Pinpoint methodological inaccuracies
    • Is the manuscript clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner?
    • Are the cited references mostly recent publications and relevant?
    • Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?
    • Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?
    • Is the dataset adequately described? Is the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?
    • Is there a comparative study with similar research efforts?
    • Is the architecture of the proposed models adequately explained? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described with sufficient details to allow another researcher to reproduce the results?
    • Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement of the current knowledge?
    • Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are hypotheses carefully identified as such?
    • Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis.
  5. A section pinpointig:
    • Missing numbers in equations, tables, figures or refences.
    • Wrong numbering in equations, tables, figures or refences.
    • If the letters or images in equations, tables, figures are blurred, cannot be read easily or are impossible to understand at all.
    • The variables in equations, tables or figures that are not explained.
    • References that are in Reference Section, but are not displayed in the manuscript and Vice Versa.
  6. A section that concludes the review pinpointing the most important comments of the review, containing additional comments that are not included in the previous sections, and the recommendation of the reviewer:
    • Accept as is: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.
    • Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can in principle be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments.
    • Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. And it is up to Program Committee Chairs if the manuscript should be rejected or not.
    • Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer to the Conference and to the scientific Community.

The above guidelines are being proposed by the AIAI Conference Board and they aim to help the reviewers in making a comprehensive review and they are not mandatory.

Skip to content