The paper contains new and significant information adequate to justify publication.
The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field, cites an appropriate range of literature sources, and does not ignore significant work in the field.
The paper's argument is built on an appropriate base of theory, concepts or other ideas.
The research is well designed, and the research methods employed are appropriate.
The results are clearly presented and analysed appropriately.
The conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper.
The paper clearly identifies implications for practice and/or further research, and these implications are consistent with the findings and conclusions of the paper.
The paper uses a correct language, and clearly expresses its case, measured against the technical language of the fields.
The authors pay proper attention to the clarity of expression and readability.

Reviewers must use this review report template

Review process

Typically, the review process implies the following steps and procedures:

Authors can submit full papers or extended abstracts for any of the conference tracks. After a new full paper or extended abstract is submitted through the Easy Chair system (in Microsoft Office Word format), the corresponding conference track's editor examines the submission and:

if not appropriate for the conference, rejects the full paper or extended abstract outright, and submits the decision through the Easy Chair system;
if appropriate:

in the case of extended abstracts: decides whether the extended abstract needs improvements, or is accepted as submitted for presentation during the conference (without publication in the conference proceedings), and, respectively, submits the decision through the Easy Chair system (including improvements suggestions, if necessary);
in the case of full papers: identifies and designates two appropriate reviewers (typically, reviewers are appointed from among the Scientific Committee's or the Scientific Advisory Board's members):

the conference track editor will provide each reviewer, by email, the submitted full paper, with all author details removed from the manuscript, alongside with the review report template;
each reviewer will complete the assigned full paper's review and return (by email) the review report (in Microsoft Office Word format) to the corresponding conference track's editor, who will upload it through the Easy Chair system, with all reviewer details removed from the report.

After a revised full paper or extended abstract is submitted through the Easy Chair system (in Microsoft Office Word format), the corresponding conference track's editor:

in the case of revised extended abstracts: decides whether the revised extended abstract is rejected, or accepted for presentation during the conference (without publication in the conference proceedings) and, respectively, submits the decision through the Easy Chair system;
in the case of revised full papers: contacts the original reviewers and reappoints them for the second round of reviewing:
- the conference track editor will provide each reviewer, by email, the revised full paper, with all author details removed from the manuscript, alongside with the review report template;
- each reviewer will complete the assigned revised full paper's review and return (by email) the review report (in Microsoft Office format) to the corresponding conference track's editor, who will upload it through the Easy Chair system, with all reviewer details removed from the report;
based on the two review reports the conference track editor decides whether the revised full paper is accepted for publication in the conference proceedings, or accepted for presentation during the conference without publication in the conference proceedings, and, respectively, submits the decision through the Easy Chair system.

For each full paper or extended abstract, conference tracks editors must comply with the ethics and malpractice statement.