Review Policies

Peer Review Process

All submitted full papers will be peer-reviewed. The acceptance will be granted if the recommendations from the reviewers are positive. The criteria are based on the technical contents, clarity and format. Authors should make sure the submitted papers use the template for this conference. There are three review processes: Initial Review of Abstract, Peer Review of full manuscript and Recommendation.

Initial Review of Abstract

The Editorial team evaluates each abstract submitted to determine if its topic and content is suitable before being reviewed. Abstracts that do not meet minimum criteria or the theme of the Conference are returned to the authors. This is in the best interest of the authors who could then decide to either revise the abstractor to submit the manuscript to a more appropriate venue, avoiding delays from a lengthy review process that would nonetheless lead to rejection.

Peer Review of Full Manuscript

Authors who’s abstract that were accepted will be requested to prepare the full manuscript within 3 weeks. These manuscripts will then sent to two blind peer reviewers of relevant expertise. The reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its originality, soundness of methodology, impact to design research, and relevance to design practices. To facilitate timely publication, reviewers  are asked to complete their reviews and provide individual critiques within two weeks. After collecting the referees’ reports, the editorial team makes a recommendation on the acceptability of the manuscript.

Reviewers should consider the following key points related to scientific content, quality and presentation of the papers:

Technical Criteria

  • Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness
  • Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts
  • Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing

Quality Criteria

  • Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
  • Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results
  • Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
  • Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

Presentation Criteria

  • Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
  • Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
  • Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
  • Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be removed.
  • Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?


Acceptance Decision

Based on the referees’ comments, the editorial team makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees’ reports. The status reports to reviewers should identify the reviewers of each paper, the final decision can be “Accept Submission”, “Revisions Required”, or “Decline Submission.” The revised version should be submitted considering the review comments.



The authors should make sure that the manuscript pass a criterion of maximum 20 percent similarities to other publications.