Peer Review Process

Every research paper and abstract in Conference Proceedings in Science and Management (CPSM) is peer reviewed before acceptance. Peer review is conducted by the conference organizing committee under standards set by the series, independently cross-checked by the CPSM Editorial Advisory Board and the Editor-in-Chief, who hold final authority over acceptance.

Review happens in two layers. The conference's volume editors run the review of each paper. The series then checks that review, and the volume as a whole, before anything is published.

Review Model

Type	Single-blind. Reviewers know who the authors are; authors are not told who the reviewers are
Who reviews	Independent subject experts chosen by the volume editors
Reviewers per paper	At least two, with a third where the first two disagree
Reviews published	No. Reports are confidential and reviewers are not named to authors
Author-suggested reviewers	May be invited, but never as the only reviewers of a paper
Decision	Recommended by the volume editors; final acceptance by the Editor-in-Chief after the cross-check
Not peer reviewed	Editorial content only: the preface, the Statement of Peer Review, and the Conference Report, each labeled as such

Minimum Standards for Conference Review

Each paper is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers. Where their recommendations conflict, a third reviewer is added.
Reviewers hold a doctorate or equivalent research or industrial standing, have published in the field of the paper, and work outside the authors' institution.
Reviewers declare any conflict of interest, including collaboration with an author in the past five years, and decline where one exists.
Every reviewer gives a clear recommendation with written comments on originality, method, results, conclusions, use of the literature, presentation, and ethics.
Authors receive the comments and may revise. The volume editors check that the revision answers them.
Only papers with clear support from their reviewers are recommended for acceptance.
Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential and do not upload them to generative AI tools.
Review is judged on the work alone, without regard to the authors' nationality, ethnicity, religion, gender, political views, or institution.

CPSM does not ask for reviewers' names. It may ask the volume editors for anonymized review reports on any paper, at any time, and a paper whose review cannot be shown to meet these standards is not published.

Cross-Check by the Series

When the volume editors submit a volume, the series checks it before acceptance. The Editorial Advisory Board and the Editor-in-Chief review:

the Statement of Peer Review and its figures;
the similarity report for every paper;
the fit of every paper with the scope of the conference and the series;
the 25% institutional limit and the handling of papers by editors; and
a sample of papers, read in full with their review history.

During copyediting, the editorial office also reads every paper and checks every reference against its source, and it reports irrelevant or fabricated citations, text that appears machine-paraphrased, and other signs of paper-mill production to the Editor-in-Chief. Where the cross-check finds a problem, the series may ask for further review, reject individual papers, or decline the whole volume. A Board member who edited the volume, or is an author in it, takes no part in its cross-check.

Statement of Peer Review

Each volume publishes a Statement of Peer Review, signed by all its volume editors and countersigned for the series. It follows the format used by the major proceedings publishers and records:

the review type and the submission system used;
the number of papers submitted, sent for review, and accepted, and the acceptance rate;
the minimum and average number of reviews per paper and the total number of reviewers;
the similarity screening tool used;
confirmation that every paper was presented at the conference; and
a named contact person for the volume.

The Statement is published at the front of the volume as part of the permanent record. The template is on the Templates page.

Similarity Screening

Every paper must reach the series with a similarity report from a recognized screening tool, and the tool is named in the Statement of Peer Review. A paper without a report is removed from the volume. A high overall score, or any single-source overlap that is not properly quoted and cited, is referred to the Editor-in-Chief before acceptance.

Timelines

Stage	Indicative time
Acknowledgment of a conference proposal	Within 5 working days
Decision on a conference proposal	Within 30 days of complete documents
Conference peer review	Typically 6 to 12 weeks, set by the conference
Cross-check of a completed volume	Within 21 days
Final acceptance and issue assignment	Within 14 days of the cross-check

Oversight of Conferences

Before accepting a proposal, the Editor-in-Chief and the Board review the conference's review plan, its program committee, and the credentials of its volume editors against the conference quality criteria. The limits on papers by volume editors and on papers from their institutions are set out on the same page.

Misconduct and Appeals

Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, manipulated review, and authorship misconduct are handled under COPE guidance, as described on the Editorial Policies page. Published papers are corrected or retracted under the Corrections, Retractions, and Errata policy. An author or organizer who believes a decision was wrong may appeal under the Complaints and Appeals procedure.

Reviewers

Reviewers are encouraged to follow the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and to link their review activity to their ORCID record. With a reviewer's consent, volume editors may thank reviewers by name in the preface.