ERMASS2018 is Calling for Reviewers
Thank you for the effort and expertise that you contribute to review the ERMASS2018 submissions, without which it would be impossible to maintain the high standard of the proceedings.
If you are interested or you have someone to recommend, please send CV to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Purpose of Peer-reviewing
The peer-reviewing is a critical process for scientific paper publication. The reviewers are responsible to ensure the scientific equality, verification and high standard.
All the submissions are divided into several chapters according to the topics, and removed the information of the authors, including name, affiliation, and email. Then the submissions send to reviewers according to their research interests. Each submission should be reviewed by at least two reviewers. And the revised papers should go through 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.
Benefits for the Reviewers
• Refresh your knowledge
• Gain some experience in that field
• Enjoy a discount for your registration
• Be a potential candidate of Technical Program Committee for the next conference
A. Match with your research field
The conference secretary will assign the papers to you who may not know your research field intimately, but only know your research filed 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 secretary that the paper is beyond your research field.
B. Time available to review the papers
The reviewing of one paper is quite time consuming, it takes about 3-6 hours to review a paper properly. Normally, the review period is 3-5 days; you can review the paper when you are available. For one paper, at least 2 review reports will be sufficient, thus if you have finished the reviewing, please send your review report to: email@example.com. If you will delay updating the review report or couldn’t finish it on time, please let the 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).