Peer Review and Selection Process
1. General Review Principles
All papers submitted to the International Scientific Conference ERAZ – Knowledge-Based Sustainable Development undergo a rigorous peer review process designed to ensure academic quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity.
Submissions are reviewed by members of the Scientific Committee and/or external reviewers, selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
2. Review Process Overview
Abstract Review
- Abstracts are submitted exclusively through the conference website; submissions by email are not accepted.
- Each abstract is evaluated using a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity of both authors and reviewers.
- Review criteria include relevance to the conference themes, originality, clarity, and academic merit.
- The abstract peer review process usually takes between 3 and 21 days, depending on the volume of submissions and reviewer availability.
- Authors are notified by email of the abstract review outcome.
- Abstracts accepted with modification are revised at the full-paper submission stage; no second abstract review round is conducted.
Full Paper Review
- Only authors whose abstracts have been accepted may submit full papers.
- Full papers are subject to a double-blind peer review process conducted via the conference website.
- The full paper peer review and selection process lasts approximately eight (8) months, including reviewer evaluations, possible revisions, and final editorial decisions.
- Reviewers provide structured evaluations using both quantitative assessment criteria and qualitative written comments.
- Reviewers may recommend revisions to improve clarity, methodology, structure, or scholarly contribution.
- Authors are strongly encouraged to address reviewer comments. Where recommendations are not followed, authors may be required to provide a reasoned justification.
3. Reviewer Assignment and Responsibilities
- Reviewers are pre-registered on the conference website.
- At the start of each review cycle, reviewers are invited to confirm their availability and subject-matter suitability.
- Reviewers are expected to:
- Review abstracts in a minimum of 20–30 minutes.
- Review full papers in a minimum of 60 minutes, with additional time commonly required for thorough evaluation.
- Reviewers provide:
- Comments for authors (constructive feedback)
- Confidential comments for editors, where appropriate
4. Review Criteria for Full Papers
Full papers are evaluated based on the following criteria:
- Alignment between the title, abstract, keywords, and paper content
- Relevance to the conference theme(s)
- Soundness and appropriateness of the research methodology
- Logical structure, coherence, and clarity of presentation
- Accuracy, relevance, and adequacy of references
Peer review focuses on the academic validity, originality, and contribution of the research. Reviewers are not expected to perform language editing or technical proofreading, although major clarity issues may be noted.
5. Editorial Decision-Making
- In cases of significant discrepancy between reviewer evaluations, the Conference Scientific Committee makes the final decision.
- Authors may be required to revise their paper where:
- The full paper does not correspond to the accepted abstract
- Formatting, structure, or referencing does not meet publication standards
- Language or presentation quality substantially affects clarity
Papers requiring revision will not be published unless the requested revisions are completed or a satisfactory explanation is approved by the editors.
6. Publication Conditions
- Acceptance of a paper for publication requires payment of one registration fee per paper, regardless of the number of authors.
- Accepted papers are published within the ERAZ publication framework and assigned appropriate ISSN, ISBN, DOI, CIP, and COBISS.SR identifiers, as applicable.
- The official language of the conference and all publications is English.
7. Plagiarism and Ethical Misconduct
All submissions are subject to plagiarism screening.
- Any identified plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or unethical research practice results in automatic rejection or disqualification of the paper.
- Ethical breaches discovered after publication may lead to withdrawal or correction, in accordance with ERAZ publication ethics.
