CHMMS 2026 Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for taking the time to review for CHMMS 2026! To ensure a high-quality technical program, these guidelines explain what is expected from all reviewers involved in CHMMS 2026.

Contents

1.    Reviewing Process

2.    Reviewer Selection

3.    Reviewing Criteria

4.    Reviewing Timeliness

5.    Competing Interests & Conflicting Interests

6.    Confidentiality

7.    Writing Review Comments

8.    Review Ethics

1.    Reviewing Process

Throughout the entire review process, the Program Chairs (PCs) maintain full oversight to ensure its integrity, transparency, and consistency at every stage. The PCs are committed to upholding the quality and standards of the conference by overseeing the peer review process, resolving any conflicts that may arise, and ensuring that all decisions are made with due diligence. Below are the specified steps of the review process:

Initial Review

All submissions for CHMMS 2026 will undergo an initial review by the program committee. This review will assess the thematic scope, basic structure, and formatting of the papers. Only those that pass this screening will proceed to the double-blind peer review stage.

Double-Blind Peer Review

During this stage, each paper will be evaluated by 2-3 technical experts (selected by Area Chairs), who will provide thorough and constructive feedback. Each reviewer will be assigned a manageable number of 5-8 papers to ensure a focused and detailed evaluation. Usually, reviewers are expected to submit their evaluations within 4-6 weeks.

Contradictory Comments

In the event of conflicting recommendations from reviewers, an additional reviewer from the Technical Committee will be invited for further input. If three reviewers are unable to reach a consensus, the PCs will make the final decision, taking into account all the provided comments. In addition, authors retain rights to submit rebuttals for further discussions among reviewers and PCs. Following the discussion period, the PCs will provide the final decision along with their justifications within 7 days.

2.    Peer Reviewer Selection

1)       Selected from qualified volunteers in both industry and academia

2)       A PhD holder and/or recognized expert in the field

3)       Possessing appropriate credentials, skills, expertise and a track record of publication

4)       Having subject matter and disciplinary expertise in the conference field

5)       No conflict of interest with authors (as elaborated in Section 5: Competing Interests & Conflicting Interests)

3.    Reviewing Criteria

Paper reviewers should familiarize themselves with the review standards established by the conference organizers. These guidelines have great leverage in ensuring the quality and consistency of the review process. As reviewers, you assume significant responsibility to adhere to these standards, ensuring that each manuscript is evaluated fairly, objectively, and in alignment with the conference’s objectives and criteria.

① Originality

The paper should be original, offer novel ideas or achieve advances in specific research areas. A paper will be excluded from the proceedings if the paper is found to be automatically generated, presents plagiarized work, or fails to meet the content standard expected after peer review.

② Relevance to the Conference Scope

The research presented in the accepted paper should be relevant to the overarching theme of the conference.

③ Significance

The paper should contain valid analysis and solid experiment design and should make a sufficient impact on the research field covered.

④ Presentation

The quality of English language usage and grammar should be appropriate and easy to read. The presentation of the paper should be well-balanced and presented in a logical order.

⑤ Discussion and Conclusions

The conclusion should succinctly summarize key findings, directly relate to the study's objectives, and highlight the broader significance and potential impact of the research. The limitations should be acknowledged, and implications for practice or future research should be discussed.

⑥ Proper Citation

The references should be relevant, accurate, up-to-date, and formatted consistently, supporting the paper's claims and following the correct citation style (e.g., APA, MLA).

⑦ Paper Format

Each paper should adhere to the format specified in the Full Paper Template.

4.    Review Timeliness

To avoid review fatigue and ensure the quality of review comments, each reviewer will be assigned a maximum of 8 papers at a time. Reviewers will typically have 4-6 weeks or so to turn in their reviews.

In addition, it is essential for reviewers to respond to peer review invitations in a timely manner, even if they are unable to accept the assignment. If reviewers agree to assess a particular manuscript, they should ensure they can commit to providing feedback within the proposed or mutually agreed-upon timeframe.

5.    Competing Interests & Conflicting Interests

Reviewers should disclose any potential competing or conflicting interests before or within the peer review process. If you are unsure about a potential competing interest that may prevent you from reviewing, please do raise this. Below are several examples for reference.

Institutional Affiliation

If reviewers are currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors, you are not permitted to review the manuscript.

Recent Professional Relationships

If reviewers have been a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past five years, you should refrain from agreeing to review the manuscript.

Manuscript Similarity

Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript merely to gain access to it without the intention of providing a thorough review. Additionally, if the manuscript closely resembles one you are preparing or have under consideration from other publications you should decline the review.

6.    Confidentiality

1)   The authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments, funding identifiers, self-revealing citations, and other related personal information will be deleted or covered before the papers are sent to double-blind peer review.

2)    All reviewers are expected to maintain anonymity. In particular, it is not allowed for reviewers to contact the authors of an accepted paper directly mentioning their role in the process.

3)   Respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and refrain from using information obtained during the peer review process for your own or another’s advantage, or to disadvantage or discredit others. Do not involve anyone else in the review of a manuscript (including early career researchers you are mentoring).

4)   Reviewers must NOT attempt to discover author identities through any means (e.g., searching preprint versions or technical reports). If authorship is inadvertently revealed, reviewers must immediately notify the Program Chairs and follow their instructions regarding whether to continue or abstain from the review.

7.    Writing Review Comments

The peer review process is vital in safeguarding the integrity of the scholarly record. It serves two distinct, yet equally important purposes: first, to provide authors with guidance; and second, to equip conference organizers and editors with the necessary foundation for making decisions regarding presentation and publication.

An exemplary peer review is often rooted in a balanced combination of three roles: the judge's objectivity, the detective's scrutiny, and the mentor's guidance. Together, these elements form a cohesive approach that not only fosters the advancement of scientific discourse but also ensures intellectual fairness.

Judge's Objectivity

Begin your review with an objective overall assessment of the paper, evaluating its Relevance, Originality, Technical Quality, Significance, and Presentation. Furthermore, ensure that your evaluation is unbiased, addressing both scholarly merits and limitations while upholding a professional tone throughout, refraining from any hostile, inflammatory, or personal comments. As soon as you receive the reviewing assignment, check for potential conflicts of interest. If any issues arise, please contact the Program Chair immediately, as instructed in the email or the message you receive through the review system.

Detective's Scrutiny

Perform a meticulous analysis of empirical evidence, methodological rigor, and logical coherence of the work. During the review process, it is of great importance to identify key strengths and weaknesses, providing specific critiques that are supported by evidence and relevant references. If the work is unclear due to missing analyses, comment on what additional investigations are essential to support the claims made. Please note that suggesting extensions beyond the paper’s scope is not required.

Mentor's Guidance

Provide constructive feedback with actionable recommendations designed to elevate the academic contribution and impact of the manuscript. Reviewers are expected to offer specific suggestions that help improve clarity and presentation, while respecting the author’s style and language background. Ensure all comments are phrased respectfully, with awareness of possible sensitivities when the author is writing in a non-native language.

8.    Ethics for Reviewing Papers

1)   Reviewers should proactively declare and avoid any conflicts of interest or competing interests, and they must respect the anonymity of the review process.

2)   Reviewers bear the responsibility of carefully reading each manuscript and providing authors with a clear, accurate, and detailed evaluation.

3)   Reviewers should maintain impartiality during the review process, free from any bias related to the nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender, or other personal characteristics of the authors, as well as the origin of the manuscript or any commercial interests.

4)   Reviewers must not disclose the manuscript content or any review comments (until the acceptance decision is announced) and are prohibited from taking unpublished results obtained during the review process for any use (e.g., for developing their own ideas).

5)   In the rebuttal stage reviewers should discreetly read the authors' responses to the review comments and address them in sequence.

6)   Reviewers should strictly comply with the review deadline. If unable to complete the review on time, reviewers must notify the editor in advance.

7)   Reviewers should regularly participate in review training and stay updated on changes to the review standards (e.g., new requirements for detecting AI-generated content).

8)  After the review process, reviewers must securely delete all copies of the manuscript and supplementary materials (e.g., videos). Any code or data implementations developed solely for the purpose of evaluating the submission must remain strictly confidential and shall not be utilized for any purposes beyond the scope of the review.