ETC2027 Reviewer Guideline Pack

---

The peer review process at Emerging Tech Conference 2027 is designed to ensure that all accepted submissions meet the scholarly, technical, and ethical standards expected of conferences associated with IEEE. Reviewers play a central role in safeguarding the quality, credibility, and relevance of the conference proceedings. Their evaluations should be fair, balanced, and evidence-based, with a focus on both academic rigor and practical contribution within the domain of emerging technologies and systems.

ETC2027 employs a double-blind peer review model in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from one another. Reviewers are expected to respect this process by avoiding any attempt to infer author identities and by reporting any accidental recognition or potential conflicts of interest to the Track Chair. Maintaining anonymity helps ensure impartial and unbiased evaluations.

Reviewers for ETC2027 primarily consist of members of the Technical Program Committee (TPC), who are selected based on their expertise and alignment with the conference tracks. In cases where a submitted paper does not sufficiently match the expertise of available TPC members, the Program/Track Chair may invite additional qualified academics or industry experts to serve as reviewers. These external reviewers are carefully chosen to ensure appropriate subject-matter expertise and are expected to adhere to the same standards, confidentiality requirements, and ethical guidelines established by IEEE.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, thoughtful, and constructive assessments of assigned papers. This includes evaluating technical rigor, relevance, and clarity, while also offering actionable feedback that can help authors improve their work. Reviews should be completed within the designated timeframe and supported by clear reasoning. Even when recommending rejection, reviewers should provide respectful and meaningful comments rather than brief or dismissive judgments.

Each submission should be assessed across several key dimensions, including originality, technical quality, relevance to the conference scope, clarity of presentation, significance of contribution, and engagement with existing literature. Reviewers should consider whether the paper introduces new ideas or insights, whether the methodology is sound and appropriately applied, and whether the findings are clearly communicated and meaningful to the field. Proper positioning within prior research is also important to demonstrate awareness of existing work.

Reviewers are asked to provide an overall recommendation that reflects their evaluation of the paper. A strong accept indicates a high-quality contribution requiring only minor revisions, while an accept reflects solid work with manageable improvements needed. Borderline papers may have mixed strengths and weaknesses and may depend on program balance, whereas reject and strong reject recommendations indicate significant or fundamental issues (See Table 1). It is important that the written feedback clearly aligns with the selected score.

All reviewers must adhere to the ethical standards established by IEEE. This includes maintaining strict confidentiality of submitted work, refraining from using unpublished material for personal benefit, and declaring any conflicts of interest. Reviewers should also alert the Track Chair or Program Committee to any suspected ethical concerns, such as plagiarism or duplicate submissions, without making direct accusations in comments to authors.

High-quality reviews should include a concise summary of the paper to demonstrate understanding, followed by a balanced discussion of strengths and weaknesses. Major concerns should be clearly explained, along with specific suggestions for improvement, while minor issues such as clarity, formatting, or missing references can be noted separately. Feedback should avoid vague statements and instead provide concrete guidance that authors can act upon to improve their work.

Reviewers may provide confidential remarks to Track/Program Chairs that will not be shared with authors. These comments can be used to express concerns about originality, ethical issues, or to provide candid recommendations that may not be appropriate for the author-facing review. This channel helps maintain transparency in the decision-making process while preserving professionalism in author communication.

Final acceptance decisions are made by Track Chairs and the Program Committee based on reviewer feedback, consistency across evaluations, and overall program considerations. While reviewer recommendations are highly influential, they are advisory in nature. The decision process also considers factors such as thematic fit and conference capacity.

For papers that are conditionally accepted, reviewers may be asked to assess revised versions to ensure that previously identified concerns have been adequately addressed. This step is important for maintaining the quality of the final proceedings and ensuring that accepted papers meet the expected standards prior to submission to IEEE Xplore.

Reviewers are typically assigned a manageable number of papers within their area of expertise and are expected to dedicate sufficient time to each review. Timely completion of reviews is essential to maintain the conference schedule, including notification of authors and preparation of proceedings. Delays in the review process can negatively impact the overall quality and organization of the conference.

Reviewers should be mindful that accepted papers are intended for submission to IEEE Xplore and must therefore meet baseline quality expectations. Papers that exhibit weak methodology, unclear writing, or limited contribution should not be recommended for acceptance unless improvements are clearly achievable within the revision timeline.

All reviews should be written in a professional and respectful tone. The objective is to support the advancement of knowledge and improve the quality of submissions, rather than to discourage authors. Even critical feedback should be framed constructively, maintaining a collegial and supportive approach throughout the review process.