Quality & Selection Criteria
SIARE selects manuscripts for publication through a structured quality framework that combines editorial review, peer-review evaluation, ethical compliance, and proceedings suitability.
The criteria on this page are aligned with the reviewer evaluation framework used across SIARE proceedings so that authors, reviewers, and editors work with a consistent quality model throughout the publication process.
Reviewer-Aligned
Selection criteria follow the same dimensions used in reviewer evaluation.
Merit-Based
Decisions depend on quality, rigor, and contribution rather than author identity.
Editor-Governed
Reviewer input informs decisions, but final approval remains editorial.
Integrity-Sensitive
Ethical and scholarly compliance are essential for publication eligibility.
Selection Framework
SIARE applies a multi-stage quality model in which manuscripts are assessed for scholarly merit, proceedings fit, reviewer-evaluated quality, and ethical compliance before publication approval.
Conference presentation eligibility and proceedings publication eligibility are related but not identical. A manuscript must satisfy both the academic expectations of the event and the editorial standards of SIARE proceedings.
Core Quality Dimensions
The following dimensions are used across reviewer assessment and editorial selection to evaluate proceedings suitability.
Originality and Contribution
The manuscript should provide a meaningful scholarly contribution rather than a repetitive or incremental submission.
Significance and Relevance
The work should be important to the field and clearly aligned with the aims and scope of the relevant proceedings or collection.
Methodology and Technical Rigor
The research design, analytical approach, or technical method should be appropriate, coherent, and academically defensible.
Results, Evidence, and Validity
Claims and conclusions should be supported by sufficient evidence, sound analysis, and responsible interpretation.
Literature Engagement and Context
The manuscript should be positioned clearly in relation to prior work and demonstrate adequate awareness of relevant scholarship.
Organization, Clarity, and Presentation
The article should be readable, well-structured, professionally written, and suitable for scholarly publication.
Tables, Figures, and Supporting Material
Visual and supporting materials should be relevant, legible, appropriately used, and helpful to the reader.
Ethical and Scholarly Compliance
The manuscript should comply with originality, citation, authorship, ethics, and integrity requirements.
5-Point Evaluation Scale
Selection decisions may be informed by the same 5-point quality scale used in reviewer evaluation.
Decision Heatmap
The overall score pattern and reviewer reasoning may guide the likely editorial pathway.
Reviewer–Editor Alignment Table
Reviewer recommendations support decisions, but editors apply independent judgment when determining final outcomes.
Acceptance Threshold
A manuscript should normally demonstrate acceptable or stronger performance across the major review dimensions before publication approval.
Expected Strengths
- Clear contribution and relevance
- Sound method or technical approach
- Adequate evidence and interpretation
- Coherent and publication-ready presentation
Typical Revision Issues
- Unclear objectives or framing
- Insufficient literature context
- Weak presentation or structure
- Underdeveloped discussion or validation
Typical Rejection Factors
- Lack of originality
- Major methodological weakness
- Out-of-scope topic
- Ethical or integrity non-compliance
