For Reviewers

Review Criteria & Evaluation

SIARE uses a structured evaluation framework to support fair, consistent, and academically rigorous peer review across all proceedings and publications.

Reviewers are expected to assess each manuscript objectively, provide evidence-based scoring, and submit constructive comments that assist both the editorial team and the authors.

Review Flow
  1. Preliminary assessment
  2. Core criteria scoring
  3. Reviewer comments
  4. Editorial recommendation

Structured Review

Every report should follow a consistent and traceable evaluation path.

Quality Focus

Reviewers assess originality, rigor, contribution, and presentation quality.

Constructive Feedback

Comments should help authors improve the work wherever revision is possible.

Editorial Support

Review reports should help editors make balanced and well-informed decisions.

1

Preliminary Assessment

Before scoring detailed criteria, reviewers should first confirm that the manuscript is suitable for review.

Scope Fit

Determine whether the manuscript falls within the thematic and academic scope of the journal, proceeding, or special issue.

  • Fully within scope
  • Partially within scope
  • Out of scope

Reviewer Confidence

Indicate how confident you are in evaluating the manuscript based on your expertise and familiarity with the subject area.

  • High confidence
  • Moderate confidence
  • Limited confidence
  • Outside main area
If a submission is outside scope or outside your area of competence, this should be indicated clearly at the beginning of the review.
2

Core Evaluation Criteria

The following dimensions form the core of the reviewer’s academic evaluation. Reviewers should apply these criteria consistently and use the rating scale in a balanced manner.

2.1 Originality and Contribution

Evaluate whether the manuscript offers original thinking, a meaningful extension of existing knowledge, or a useful synthesis that advances the field.

  • Does the work provide fresh insight, novelty, or a distinct scholarly contribution?
  • Is the contribution meaningful rather than incremental or repetitive?
  • Does the manuscript demonstrate why the work matters academically or practically?
2.2 Significance and Relevance

Assess the importance of the topic and the relevance of the manuscript to the intended readership and publication scope.

  • Is the problem important, timely, or meaningful to the field?
  • Does the paper fit the aims and scope of the proceeding or journal?
  • Will the work be useful to researchers, practitioners, or both?
2.3 Methodology and Technical Rigor

Review the soundness of the research design, technical approach, analysis, methods, and execution of the study.

  • Are the methods or analytical procedures appropriate and sufficiently described?
  • Are assumptions, variables, data sources, and limitations addressed properly?
  • Is the approach rigorous, valid, and reproducible in principle?
2.4 Results, Evidence, and Validity of Conclusions

Consider whether the results are convincing, the evidence is adequate, and the conclusions are supported by the findings.

  • Are results presented clearly and interpreted appropriately?
  • Are claims proportionate to the evidence provided?
  • Do the conclusions follow logically from the analysis or discussion?
2.5 Literature Engagement and Context

Check whether the manuscript demonstrates an adequate understanding of related work and positions the contribution clearly within the existing body of knowledge.

  • Are relevant prior studies properly cited and discussed?
  • Is the gap in literature or practice clearly identified?
  • Does the paper acknowledge significant related work appropriately?
2.6 Organization, Clarity, and Presentation

Evaluate the structure, readability, coherence, and communication quality of the manuscript.

  • Is the manuscript logically organized and easy to follow?
  • Are title, abstract, section flow, and conclusions effective?
  • Is the language clear, professional, and suitable for scholarly publication?
2.7 Tables, Figures, and Supporting Material

Review whether visual and supporting elements are necessary, readable, appropriately labeled, and helpful to the reader.

  • Are tables and figures relevant, legible, and correctly referenced?
  • Do visual elements support rather than duplicate the narrative?
  • Is any supplementary content necessary and useful?
2.8 Ethical and Scholarly Compliance

Consider whether the manuscript appears to comply with ethical expectations in relation to originality, citation practice, research integrity, and responsible reporting.

  • Does the manuscript appear free from plagiarism, duplicate submission, or obvious ethical concern?
  • Are ethical approvals, consents, or declarations addressed where applicable?
  • Should any concern be raised in confidential comments to the editor?
3

Reviewer Feedback Structure

In addition to scoring, reviewers should provide narrative comments in a structured form. Well-organized feedback improves editorial assessment and makes revision expectations clearer for authors.

4

Final Recommendation

The final recommendation should reflect the overall balance of originality, rigor, clarity, relevance, and revision potential.

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or very minimal changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is publishable, but small improvements are required before final acceptance.

Major Revision

The submission has potential, but substantial revision is needed before reconsideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not currently meet the required academic or editorial standard for publication.

Final publication decisions are made by the editorial team after considering reviewer reports, consistency of evaluation, and editorial judgment.