Peer-reviewing of the Proceedings

Compared with journals, proceedings can publish a much wider range of articles, providing a scope and opportunity to create comprehensive proceedings volumes. In addition to original research manuscripts, AIJR Proceedings welcomes review or other works that provide useful summaries, background information, or introductions to specific fields of research. Although proceedings include a broader range of article types, they should not include poor quality or inferior work that is fundamentally unworthy of publication.

Why Peer-reviewing required?

AIJR Publisher understands the nature and purpose of conference proceedings and their essential role within the field of scientific communication. We encourage you to provide proceedings that contain articles that can be read and cited with confidence. To achieve this goal, proceedings editors are expected to undertake an appropriate peer-review process.

Reviewing Guideline for Volume Editors

Conference organizers and editors are free to select their reviewers, but all reviewers must be suitably qualified experts in the field. All reviews must be conducted according to the standard norms and expectations of an ethical review process. A robust peer-review process will reflect the quality of the published proceedings, providing recognition of the editors’ work and enhancing the value of your proceedings to abstracting and indexing services.

We ask all editors and associated referees to evaluate each manuscript in view of technical and contribution both according to the following minimum criteria.

1. Technical Review

The manuscript should include the major elements of an article such that; Title, Abstract, Keywords, Introduction, Methodology, Results, Discussion, Conclusion, References, etc. The following consideration may be useful for volume editors and referees-

  • The Title should be adequate and unique to describes the article such that reading it alone would convey nature and content.
  • Author’s name, affiliation and email ids are properly written, and the corresponding author has clearly been indicated by putting * mark. Author’s title (Dr. Prof. …), academic degree (Ph.D., M.D., student…) and designation (Professor, Engineer, Specialist…..) shall be omitted.
  • Abstract within 300 words by focusing on objective, methodology, key results which must convey enough understanding when reading in isolation from the paper.
  • Keywords should be specific to the content and not more than 5 keywords.
  • Extensive literature review with recent development in the field available.
  • The article is clear and concise containing well-expressed ideas which should be readable and understandable by its intended readers.
  • Figures and tables should be properly numbered with a descriptive title and must be explained within the text by referring to the corresponding figure/table number.
  • References are properly cited within the text and listed with valid formatting.
  • Have reasonable and concise conclusions by focusing on major outcome presented, or ideas/concepts discussed, its limitation, novelty, and recommendation.
  • Sufficient recent references are available.
  • The article uses correct and simple English; conveying the science and intent/meaning or purpose.

2. Contribution Review

Volume editor/reviewer should ask if the publication of the article will make a positive contribution to the scientific literature. An article’s contribution can have the following attributes-

  • The manuscript should be an original article which has not been published previously in refereed publication and solely the work of stated authors.
  • New explanations of familiar topics.
  • Excellent descriptions or explanations of complex subjects.
  • Critical review articles with appropriate recommendation to set a new direction.
  • Useful or interesting background information and recent development in the field.
  • Have merit and uses valid methodology by maintaining its consistency as well as accuracy.


References may depend on the type of article; however, here are some general points you may like to consider-

  • Do the references look appropriate for the topic? Are key papers included that you would expect to see?
  • Is the distribution of journals and publications cited, and age of the citations, appropriate?
  • Recent references shall be considered to demonstrate that the author is aware of current and key research in their field.

The manuscript should be reviewed in both aspects (technical and contribution) as described above. Poorly written papers will be returned for re-writing or will be rejected if found unsatisfactory improvements.

AIJR Publisher