To join us as a reviewer, you will enjoy the following Reviewer Benefits:
• Refresh your knowledge
• Gain some experience in conference topics' field
• Free of charge to tour around Xiamen after the conference
• Enjoy a discount ($ 50) for your conference registration fee
• Award a reviewer certificate
• Be a potential candidate of TPC for the next conference
We are calling for reviewers, if you are interested in the review; please send your CV and profile description to email@example.com.
Reviewers need to keep all peer review documents confidential, not to reveal any information about the manuscripts to anyone unless preauthorized by the Chair/Editor-in-Chief.
The contents, ideas of the papers cannot be used, referenced, or included in the works of the reviewers prior to publication. Until then, the information in the papers should be treated as confidentiality and must not be used for any potential purposes uncorrelated to the review process.
When reviewing a manuscript on double-blind, reviewers should be careful not to reveal the identity to the authors.
Conflict of Interest
A conflict of interest is defined as a situation in which the reviewer can be viewed as being able to benefit personally from the outcome of a review, or in which the reviewer is not able to remain objective for personal reasons. If the conflict of interest exists, then the reviewer should decline to review the paper. The specific conflicts may be related to the following situations:
The reviewer is the author or co-author of the paper.
The reviewer works in the same institute/affiliation of one of the authors.
The reviewer is the supervisor, adviser of one of the authors.
The reviewer’s unpublished work is studying the same issue and used the same research approaches.
The reviewer recognizes the authors of the paper.
The assignments are trying to avoid most conflicts, but if you recognize that your reviewing will be related to the conflict of rights, please turn down the paper and write back the refusing mail for the request.
Purpose of Peer-Review
The peer-reviewing is a critical process for scientific paper publication. The reviewers are responsible to ensure scientific equality, verification and high standard.
The research papers should be peer-reviewed by at least three experts assigned by Chair/Editor-in-Chief before acceptance. And the revised papers should undergo 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 Chair/Editor-in-Chief 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 Chair/Editor-in-Chief 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 three review reports will be sufficient, thus if you have finished the reviewing, please update your review report on time by submission system. If you will delay updating the review report or couldn't finish it on time, please let the Chair/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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
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 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 publishing 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 review system or in the manuscript directly by using the "Note" in PDF.
The minor or major revisions will be modified and resubmitted within 10 days and then undergo another review process by a third reviewer who should give comments.
The Conference Chair/Editor-in-Chief will make the final decision (Accept or Reject).
Normally you would be expected to evaluate the paper according to the following:
• Within scope
The topics of BDMIP 2022 cover Big Data Mining, Date Management and Processing. All these papers should be within the scope of BDMIP 2022, and you can visit detailed topics at Call for Paper.
The research papers should be of novelty and of interest to International Readers. Already published papers, online publications, or formally printed publications are not acceptable. The 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 6% with per-publication.
For Conference proceedings papers, the paper should typeset according to the template which could be downloaded on the call for papers page. 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 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 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 "Note" in PDF or could list this in the review report and ask the author to ask help from professionals.
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 BDMIP 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.