Review for ICoGB

We appreciate your interest of being a reviewer for the conference. As peer review is probably the most essential part of a conference in the pursuit of quality publications, the unbiased and efficient performance of reviewers is of vital importance in the selection of papers.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are assumed by committee members selected from qualified volunteers both in industries and academia.

  • hold a PhD degree and/or be a recognized expert in the field

  • appropriate credentials, skills, and expertise

  • subject matter and disciplinary expertise in the conference field

  • no conflict of interest with authors, including if they have published together in the past five years

Review Process

Papers submitted to the conference will undergo a review process jointly carried out by editors and reviewers in the pertinent subject area to the paper.

Benefits of Being a Reviewer

Being a peer reviewer in a conference is usually volunteer and unawarded work. We are striving to recognize the work of reviewers by offering the following benefits:

  • Invaluable review experience

  • Personalized Reviewer Certificate

  • Name displayed on conference webpage

  • Certain waiver of registration fee of the conference

  • The chance of being awarded ‘Best Reviewer’ for that year

Accept or Decline

Reviewer are expected to accept or decline any invitations in a timely manner, based on the manuscript title and abstract. If there is any conflict of interest, or the study is beyond your areas of expertise, please inform the editor as soon as possible.

Review Ethics

Authors are expecting to read detailed comments and suggestions from reviewers which are helpful for the improvement of their work. Please always give impartial and constructive feedback with reasonable suggestions and professional tone.

If any sign of interest conflict is detected, it should be revealed to the editor promptly. Please avoid suggesting the addition of irrelevant or unnecessary references. If you find any suspected ethical issues during the review process, please alert the editor immediately.

Please keep confidential about all intellectual contents of the submissions and documents used in the review process. The manuscripts should not be viewed by anyone else except from the reviewer themselves. Any content obtained during peer review should not be used as personal research use

Please leave the reviewing process sufficient time so it could be done before the deadline. When you are not able to hand in the review report by the deadline, please immediately inform the editors.

Please stay available for contact in case any special situation emerges, and respond to the editor in a timely manner.

Review Report

A formal structure of review report consisting of an overall recommendation followed by explanatory comments addressing specific questions and suggestions is highly recommended to help authors to improve their work and help the editor make the final decision.

Advices on papers should be specific to particular sentences or paragraphs.

Write comments clearly and only in English for our authors may speaks different languages.

Authors have the right to rebut the peer review result which could lead to second round of peer review. The editor has the authority to decide whether to perform a second round of peer review.