All reviewers participating in GMEISS 2027 adhere to the highest standards of professional ethics, confidentiality, fairness, and academic integrity.
Scientific merits above personal opinion.
Equal treatment for all authors regardless of nationality, institution, gender, or career stage.
Protect unpublished research and intellectual property.
Help authors improve their work through respectful, evidence-based recommendations.
Use professional judgement, disclose conflicts of interest, and refrain from relying on AI for scientific evaluations.
Reviewers are selected by the Conference Scientific Committee based on their academic qualifications, publication record, subject expertise, and reviewing experience. Every effort is made to ensure that manuscripts are evaluated by reviewers with complementary expertise relevant to the submitted research.
Each manuscript is assigned to at least two independent reviewers, who provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluations. Reviewers are encouraged not only to assess scientific quality but also to provide developmental feedback that helps authors improve clarity, originality, methodological rigour, and overall impact.
Reviewers provide detailed comments for both the authors and the Conference Scientific Committee together with a publication recommendation.
AI tools may assist reviewers in improving grammar, organisation, or readability of review reports — but reviewers remain fully responsible for every aspect of their evaluation.
Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary files, or unpublished research data into publicly available generative AI systems or any platform that may retain, learn from, or redistribute submitted content without explicit author consent.
The scientific assessment, originality evaluation, methodological critique, publication recommendation, and final review report must always represent the independent professional judgement of the reviewer and must never be delegated to an AI system.
GMEISS views peer review as an essential scholarly contribution to the advancement of science. The conference provides:
The Scientific Committee also provides guidance to first-time reviewers where appropriate, building reviewer capacity while maintaining rigorous standards.
The Conference Scientific Committee monitors the quality and completeness of all review reports. Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, additional independent reviews may be commissioned, or an Associate Editor or Track Chair may provide an adjudicating recommendation.
Final publication decisions are based on the collective reviewer evaluations, editorial assessment, and the manuscript's overall contribution to the conference objectives.
