Peer Review

WFCES 2025 operates a rigorous, independent, double-blind review process to ensure scientific quality, transparency, and alignment with the symposium’s optics/photonics scope. Every accepted paper demonstrates methodological soundness, clarity, and contribution to the field.

1. Workflow and Screening

  1. Desk screening: Submissions are checked for scope alignment, template use, ethics/approval statements, language clarity, and similarity/image integrity. Non-compliant papers may be declined without external review.
  2. Anonymization: Manuscripts must be prepared for double-blind conditions; identifying details are removed to the extent possible.

2. Reviewer Selection and Ethics

  1. At least two independent experts are invited based on subject expertise, methodological competence, and absence of conflicts.
  2. Reviewers provide objective, confidential, and timely assessments, and must not use unpublished material for personal advantage.
  3. Declared conflicts of interest lead to reassignment; editors may add a third reviewer in case of divergent or insufficient reports.

3. Evaluation Criteria

  1. Novelty and contribution to optics/photonics and its applications to energy, sensing, imaging, or aerospace/Earth observation.
  2. Scientific rigor, methodology, and statistical validity; appropriateness of datasets and experiments.
  3. Clarity, organization, and quality of figures/tables; completeness and accuracy of references (with DOIs where available).
  4. Reproducibility and transparency (availability statements for data/code/materials).
  5. Ethics and compliance (approvals, consent, safety, dual-use disclosures).

4. Decisions and Revision Rounds

  1. Decision categories: Accept; Minor Revision; Major Revision (with re-review); Reject.
  2. Consistency: Editors ensure decisions are consistent with reviewer advice and symposium standards; in case of conflict, an additional reviewer or senior editor may be consulted.
  3. Revisions: Authors submit a point-by-point response and revised files. Substantial changes may trigger additional review rounds.

5. Acceptance / Rejection Process (Finalization)

  1. Acceptance prerequisites: (i) Positive peer-review outcome; (ii) Verified ethics statements; (iii) Satisfactory similarity and image-integrity screening; (iv) Complete camera-ready package; (v) Author registration and commitment to present.
  2. Grounds for rejection at any stage: Scope mismatch; methodological flaws; unresolved reviewer concerns; excessive or undisclosed overlap; image/data manipulation; missing approvals/permits; non-compliance with template or deadlines; legal or sanctions-related concerns.
  3. Conditional acceptance: Minor outstanding issues may be requested before camera-ready approval. Failure to resolve conditions leads to rejection.
  4. No-show enforcement: Papers not presented (oral/poster) are excluded from the proceedings set delivered to the publisher.

6. Timelines (Targets)

  1. Desk screening: 7–10 days.
  2. External review: 2–4 weeks (per round).
  3. Revisions: 1–3 weeks per round, depending on extent.
  4. Production checks: prior to the camera-ready deadline and again before transmission to the publisher.

7. Ethics Escalation and Appeals

  1. Ethics escalation: Suspected duplication, plagiarism, image manipulation, or undisclosed conflicts are investigated following COPE-aligned procedures; appropriate actions (correction, rejection, retraction, institutional notice) are taken as warranted.
  2. Appeals: Evidence-based appeals may be submitted within 10 days of decision. A senior editor uninvolved in the original decision will review and provide a written outcome. Decisions after appeal are final for the current edition.