To check for compliance with formatting and anonymity requirements before the paper is sent for review.

To reject or return papers that do not adhere to the guidelines.

Reviewer Selection

To select qualified reviewers from the technical committee based on their expertise and experience in the relevant domain.

Ensure reviewers do not have conflicts of interest with the authors (e.g., colleagues, collaborators).

Communication Process

Authors: Communicate only through a designated editorial platform or email that anonymizes correspondence.

Reviewers: Share only the anonymized manuscript and avoid revealing the author(s) or reviewer(s) identities during the process.

Review Management

To use a conference management system (e.g., EasyChair, Microsoft CMT) to facilitate double-blind reviews. Assign at least two or three reviewers per manuscript for fair and balanced feedback.

Evaluation Criteria

Ask reviewers to evaluate based on originality, relevance, methodology, technical accuracy, and clarity.

Avoid personal biases; focus strictly on the quality and contribution of the manuscript.

Decision Making

After reviews, the editorial team consolidates feedback, resolves conflicts (if any), and makes an impartial acceptance/rejection decision.

Share comments and suggestions with authors, keeping reviewers’ identities confidential.

Post-Review Process

Once papers are accepted and revisions finalized, the authors’ details can be restored for publication in the proceedings.

Maintain records of all correspondence and reviews for transparency.

Tools for Double-Blind Review

Submission Platforms: EasyChair or  Microsoft CMT.

Anti-Plagiarism Tools: Use plagiarism checkers (e.g., Turnitin) to validate originality without disclosing authors’ identities.