Policies & standards
SWS Scholarly Society · Official current policy ↗
SWS Peer Review Process: Ensuring Excellence in Scientific Publishing
Peer Review — Clear Steps, Timely Feedback
Our two-stage process combines an initial assessment of your abstract with a thorough peer review of your full paper. Acceptance of the abstract allows you to proceed to full-paper submission; final acceptance depends on the manuscript review.
We aim to provide the first full-paper review decision within 4–6 weeks of receiving all required submission materials. The timeframe depends on the subject area, manuscript complexity and reviewer availability. Any requested author revisions are handled separately.
SWS Peer Review Process. Upholding Excellence in Scientific and Scholarly Publishing
Every submitted abstract, manuscript, and scholarly work undergoes a rigorous, double-blind peer review process via our internal Abstract & Manuscript Management Syste (AMMS). This ensures academic integrity, ethical transparency, and the highest standards of scientific publishing—whether for conference proceedings or peer-reviewed journals.
Submission & Author Registration
All submissions must be made exclusively through the author’s profile on the respective conference or journal platform. Email submissions are accepted only in exceptional cases.
Before submitting, each author must register through “My Profile” on the respective event or journal website and provide brief professional information. This information is kept confidential and used only to support workflow tracking, reviewer matching, and audit integrity within AMMS—while maintaining strict double-blind anonymity between reviewers and authors.
Before submitting, each author must register through “My Profile” on the respective event or journal website and provide brief professional information. This information is kept confidential and used only to support workflow tracking, reviewer matching, and audit integrity within AMMS—while maintaining strict double-blind anonymity between reviewers and authors.
Ethical Compliance
By submitting, authors confirm their full agreement with the following:
- Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
- Publishing Policies and Standards of the relevant conference, journal, or book series.
This ethical foundation is mandatory and applies to all publications across the SWS Scholarly Society.
- Publication Ethics & Malpractice Statement
- Publishing Policies and Standards of the relevant conference, journal, or book series.
This ethical foundation is mandatory and applies to all publications across the SWS Scholarly Society.
Double-Blind Peer Review
All submissions are reviewed by a minimum of two to three independent reviewers, selected automatically by AMMS.
Reviewers are matched based on:
- Area of expertise
- Topical relevance
- Reviewer availability and workflow balance
The entire process is double-blind: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another, ensuring fairness, impartiality, and objectivity.
Reviewers complete their evaluations directly within AMMS, where they may:
- Submit structured evaluations and recommendations
- Add detailed comments for authors
- Leave confidential notes for the Scientific or Editorial Committee
Reviewers are matched based on:
- Area of expertise
- Topical relevance
- Reviewer availability and workflow balance
The entire process is double-blind: authors and reviewers remain anonymous to one another, ensuring fairness, impartiality, and objectivity.
Reviewers complete their evaluations directly within AMMS, where they may:
- Submit structured evaluations and recommendations
- Add detailed comments for authors
- Leave confidential notes for the Scientific or Editorial Committee
Evaluation Criteria
Abstract Review Criteria
- Relevance to the Conference or Journal Scope
- Contribution to the Scientific or Academic Debate
- Clarity of the Research Problem, Aim, and Objectives
- Appropriateness of the Research Methodology
- Standard of English
- Use and Relevance of Keywords
- Appropriate Section or Topic Selection
- Overall Abstract Quality and Impression
- Final Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject
- Reviewer Comments
Manuscript Review Criteria
- Scientific Merit and Validity
- Clarity of Writing, Structure, and Logical Flow
- Quality and Appropriateness of Figures and Tables
- Relevance and Depth of the Discussion
- Justification of the Conclusions
- Interdisciplinary Relevance and Broader Impact
- Originality and Novelty of the Research
- Final Recommendation: Accept / Accept with Revisions / Reject
- Reviewer Comments
- Relevance to the Conference or Journal Scope
- Contribution to the Scientific or Academic Debate
- Clarity of the Research Problem, Aim, and Objectives
- Appropriateness of the Research Methodology
- Standard of English
- Use and Relevance of Keywords
- Appropriate Section or Topic Selection
- Overall Abstract Quality and Impression
- Final Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revisions / Major Revisions / Reject
- Reviewer Comments
Manuscript Review Criteria
- Scientific Merit and Validity
- Clarity of Writing, Structure, and Logical Flow
- Quality and Appropriateness of Figures and Tables
- Relevance and Depth of the Discussion
- Justification of the Conclusions
- Interdisciplinary Relevance and Broader Impact
- Originality and Novelty of the Research
- Final Recommendation: Accept / Accept with Revisions / Reject
- Reviewer Comments
Full Paper Submission & Second-Stage Review
Authors must upload their full papers using the official SWS template, in all required formats, via the My Article section in their profiles.
Submissions that:
- Do not correspond to the accepted abstract
- Fail to follow formatting or ethical guidelines
- Lack sufficient scientific quality or structure
→ may be returned or rejected.
Each full paper undergoes a second peer review, focusing on:
- Scientific coherence
- Referencing standards
- Language clarity
- Structural integrity
- Ethical and academic rigor
Authors may be asked to revise and resubmit their paper based on reviewer recommendations.
Submissions that:
- Do not correspond to the accepted abstract
- Fail to follow formatting or ethical guidelines
- Lack sufficient scientific quality or structure
→ may be returned or rejected.
Each full paper undergoes a second peer review, focusing on:
- Scientific coherence
- Referencing standards
- Language clarity
- Structural integrity
- Ethical and academic rigor
Authors may be asked to revise and resubmit their paper based on reviewer recommendations.
Copyediting & Proof Approval
Once accepted, manuscripts are professionally copyedited for grammar, consistency, formatting, and clarity. Authors will be provided with proofs and may suggest final corrections.
The SWS editorial team reserves the right to:
- Perform style-editing and formatting
- Enforce page limits and structural requirements
- Finalize the publication layout for both digital and print editions
The SWS editorial team reserves the right to:
- Perform style-editing and formatting
- Enforce page limits and structural requirements
- Finalize the publication layout for both digital and print editions
Conference Presentation Policy (Applicable for Conference Proceedings Only)
For conference-related publications, all accepted papers must be presented in person by the registered Lecturer (corresponding author) at the respective event.
- Co-Lecturers or Co-Authors are welcome to join, provided they are also registered and actively involved in the research.
- Authors are responsible for the scientific and visual quality of both their publication and oral/poster presentation.
We believe that peer review is not just a process—it is a responsibility. It safeguards the integrity of our scientific discourse, encourages constructive dialogue, and honors the collective mission of our global academic and artistic community. Whether published in our conference proceedings or peer-reviewed journals, your work will be reviewed, refined, and presented with the dignity it deserves.
- Co-Lecturers or Co-Authors are welcome to join, provided they are also registered and actively involved in the research.
- Authors are responsible for the scientific and visual quality of both their publication and oral/poster presentation.
We believe that peer review is not just a process—it is a responsibility. It safeguards the integrity of our scientific discourse, encourages constructive dialogue, and honors the collective mission of our global academic and artistic community. Whether published in our conference proceedings or peer-reviewed journals, your work will be reviewed, refined, and presented with the dignity it deserves.