PAPER REVIEW|审稿流程


Call for Reviewers

To join us as a reviewer, you will enjoy the following Reviewer Benefits: 
  Refresh your knowledge
  Gain some experience in that field
  Free to tour around Qingdao after the conference
  Enjoy a discount for your conference registration fee
  Be a potential candidate of Technical Program Committee for the next conference
 
We are calling for reviewers, if you are interested in the review; please send your CV to info@apsdp.net.


Purpose of Peer-Review

The peer reviewing is a critical process for scientific paper publication. The reviewers are responsible to ensure the scientific equality, verification and high standard.
The research papers should be peer-reviewed by at least two expert reviewers before acceptance. And the revised papers should go through the second peer-reviewing if it is necessary. Thus these review comments on the papers should be helpful to assist the authors to improve the paper content, structure, and language.



Review Invitation Related Requirements

A. Matching with your research field
The conference secretary will assign the papers to you who may not know your research field intimately, but only know your research field in a broader domain. And the papers appear to be not matched well with your research field. At such condition, you can recommend other experts or inform the secretary that the paper is beyond your research field.
 
B. Time available to review the papers
The reviewing of one article is quite time consuming, it takes about 3-6 hours to review a paper properly. Normally, the review period is 1-2 weeks; you can review the paper when you are available. For one paper, at least 2 review reports will be sufficient, thus if you have finished the reviewing, please update your review report on time or send it by email to the secretary. If you will delay updating the review report or couldnt finish it on time, please let the secretary know as soon as you can and if possible advise an alternative reviewer(s).
 
C. Potential conflicts of interest

The reviewers should not be in the same affiliation or institute with the author(s), or have any other connection with the author(s). 


Points to Conduct the Review 

For each reviewer, there is a specific review account, please remember your username and password. If you are unable to login to it, please contact info@apsdp.net.
When you login to the review system, you will see a list of papers pending for reviewing, and there are one or more papers pending for your reviewing. 
You can download the full paper and the review form at this page. Sometimes, the papers may be only an abstract, it is because some authors would like to present an oral or poster presentation, and they just submit the abstract for acceptance. You are welcome to inform us if the paper(s) could be accepted for presentation or not.
To assist the author to improve the paper quality and to guide them for future paper preparation, please illustrate your points and comments in the review form or in the manuscript directly by using the track change in Microsoft Word.
 
Normally you would be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following:
 Within scope
The topics of the (APSDP 2022) cover Physical Sciences and Applications, Big Data, Artificial intelligence, Database System and Networking. All these papers should be within the scope of APSDP 2022, and you can visit detailed topics at Call for Paper
  Originality
The research papers should be of novelty and of interest to International Readers. Already published papers, online publication, or formally printed publication are not acceptable. Online publication includes your institute website, or any other media coverage. If the research has been covered previously, even by the author himself, the similarity should not be more than 5%.
  Structure
For Conference proceedings papers, the paper should lay out according to the template which could be downloading in the call for papers page. Or if your paper is intended for publication in journal, the paper should be laid out clearly as well. Please consider each element in turn:
 
 Title: Is the title concise and clearly describe the paper? If you think the title is not appropriate, you may advise the change of another one.
 Abstract: Does it reflect the content of the paper? 
 Introduction: Does it describe what the author hoped to achieve accurately, and clearly state the problem being investigated? 
 Method: Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Is there sufficient information present for you to replicate the research? Does the article identify the procedures followed? Are these ordered in a meaningful way? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?
 Figures and Tables: Are they an important part? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they consistent, e.g. bars in charts are the same width, the scales on the axis are logical.
 Results: Is it clearly laid out and in a logical sequence. Please consider if the appropriate analysis has been conducted. Are the statistics correct? 
 Conclusion/Discussion: Are the claim(s) in this section supported by the results, do they seem reasonable? Have the authors indicated how the results relate to expectations and to earlier research? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? Does the conclusion explain how the research has moved the body of scientific knowledge forward?
 Language: Is the English professional? You may correct the language in the text by using Track change of Microsoft Word or could list this in the review report and ask the author ask help from professionals.

Acknowledgements

Peer review is essential to the reliable communication of science and we would like to acknowledge all the reviewers who have contributed a lot to the APSDP 2022 conference. Their assistance, comments and suggestions not only help authors in improving the quality of their papers, but also furthering the excellence and integrity of the conference.
 
https://apsdp.net/Review/
apsdp.net
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-21
16886
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:FXHOSMZ2TL46KGTZD5IQ4T3QQ3HRH3VK
<urn:uuid:b2330f20-a163-47ef-bda2-bc775ae90b8a>
2022-05-21T13:08:19Z
139.129.175.122
text/html
sha1:ZF75V2SUC2QVREMJQKKX7SVQ4BSZ2Y4P
<urn:uuid:a7b76a98-552d-46c5-af22-ef18115688fd>
https://apsdp.net/Review/
response
<urn:uuid:2a457521-9dd6-4fa4-9a5c-ea6339c40289>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-21
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-28
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.3-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/