All VectMag conferences have strict peer-review guidelines. After the 4th General Body Meeting the following recommendations have been adopted. The reviewers must adhere to the following checks in their peer-review comments- Abstract: Should contain the following components (a) Objective(s); (b) Method(s)/Solution; (c) Key results/Metrics ( no more than 2 sentences); (d)brief conclusions. The Maximum permissible length for Abstract is 200 words. Introduction: Check for the (a) Context (b) Importance and motivation of the article Literature Review/ Related Work/ Background: Check for the following three broad components (a) Key works, their motivations and findings (b) Knowledge gaps in the existing literature (c) Relevance of cited literature in the current times. Key contributions: Atleast one key contribution of the presented article should be mentioned that demonstrates how the authors have added to the existing body of knowledge. Methods/Experiments: Check how the presented method and experiment is relevant in supporting the hypothesis or claims being made in the paper. Results & Discussions: They plots, tables, and figures should be properly discussed, their relevancy to the hypothesis and claims must be indicated clearly. In case of observations or reports style papers the key observations must be mentioned. Conclusions: Should recap the main contributions of the paper, and the relevant results that indicate towards the validity of the hypothesis/claims. References: Ensure that all references are in English in the prescribed format with DOI or relevant links. The above 8 parameters must be reviewed and commented upon. If you are satisfied with the relevant component then you can mention the same.

All Review Reports must have a comment included by the reviewer in the relevant component. Example: Abstract: (a) The objectives of the paper have not be clearly indicated (b) Methods have been mentioned (c) Key Results/metrics have been clearly indicated (d) Short Conclusion has been included in the abstract. Authors are recommended to include objectives of this paper in a clear and concise way in the abstract. Introduction: (a) Context is well introduced for the audience, (b) Importance and motivation of the article is clearly mentioned. Literature Review/ Related Work/ Background: (a) Key works, their motivations and findings: These are not well structured and hence the authors are requested to draft them in the mentioned order. (b) Knowledge gaps in the existing literature have to be clearly indicated (c) Relevance of cited literature in the current times: Quite relevant Key contributions: The authors have clearly indicated the key contributions. Methods/Experiments: The hypothesis rejection parameters have not been clearly defined. The exclusion and inclusion criteria in the study have to be defined. Results & Discussions: The plots 2 and 3 are not clearly visible and are of a very poor quality. The fontsize of the X and Y axis should be atleast as large as the caption of the Figures. The authors must ensure these quality checks. Also, the tables should not be screenshots, the authors should use native word processor table environment. The Figure 5 and 8 are not relevant to the paper and its claims, authors are requested to remove them or indicate how they are relevant to the claims. Conclusions: Rewrite the conclusions to match the results that support or oppose your initial hypothesis or theory. References: As per the prescribed format. No changes needed in this section. Recommendation: Revisions Required.

During the round 1 the reviewers must indicate their observations for each of the 8 major sections shown earlier. Even if the reviewers recommend accept without changes then they should mention why they recommend the said decision. Single line decisions shall not be considered.

Every now and then the VectMag conference organizers have come across conflicting review comments when we consider two independent reviewers in all their 14 plus conferences. In either case the authors are asked to provide thorough response to reviewers where the bulk of the effort should be to address the reviewer concerns. If both the reviewers are satisfied then the decision for acceptance shall be sent, else, the paper will be rejected. The editor can decided to assign a third reviewer, in such a case the best of two out of the three reviews shall be considered as the final decision. However, the editor is required to make an entry in the review flow section under "Add a Discussion"

The Conference has chosen SPAST OJS system as the venue for all peer review processes. Please look at the tracks of the conference to know where you have to submit your articles.

The VectMag conference ensures that all reviewers satisfy the following basic parameters: Should have a track record of publishing atleast 4 articles in the past two years. Of these 4 articles atleast two should be as first author articles. Should atleast be enrolled as a PhD candidate or above. We expect the reviewers to add their ORCID to their reviewer profile and populate the ORCID with their relevant publications track record.

The VectMag Editors have an international team of editors and reviewers you can find them here https://www.vectmag.com/editorial-commitee https://www.vectmag.com/publications-quality-committee https://www.vectmag.com/reviewers (Partial List) We ensure that none of the reviewers are from the same Institution or country as the authors of the submissions. E.g. If a submission is from authors of an Indian University then the reviewers will be either of these countries - Thailand, Philippines, Nigeria, Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Italy, Greece, USA etc. Our editors pay special attention to this condition and hence we have longer review cycles than most other conferences.

A maximum of 15% is allowed.

30%

(1) Research Articles (2) Short articles that are specifically designed for an extended articles in any of the special issues or regular issues. It is recommended that the number of pages should not exceed 4 or no more than 2000 words. (3) Short Reviews or Perspectives Articles

We have a negative opinion on the usage of AI if used for drafting the article's images, artwork, figures, graphs, tables, data etc. Such articles are desk rejected. We accept usage of AI for grammar correction and nothing more. Authors are encouraged to disclose usage of AI in their submissions by filling the following form and upload it during submission

Guidelines for Reviewers All reviewers should stick to the following broad guidelines. Essential Requirements Formatting should adhere to the guidelines provided by the organizer/publisher. The Organizers have assigned an internal team for formatting corrections. Image quality: Images should not be copied, under copyright, or taken from other papers as screenshots. Grammar: Corrections can be made internally. The Organizers have assigned an internal team for Grammar corrections. Author affiliations and email IDs should be accurate and functional at the time of indexing. Citations: A maximum of three self-citations is allowed. No politically sensitive articles, advertisements for a particular ideology, politician/individual, or political party. Scientific accuracy: Manuscripts with incorrect logic or scientifically unfounded claims will be rejected. Manuscripts must be relevant to the conference theme/scope; otherwise, they will not be considered. Plagiarism Report: Ensure that the similarity index, excluding references, does not exceed 10%. Use either iThenticate or Turnitin software exclusively. ​ Review Quality and Diversity: 1. "At least 2 reviewers are needed."2. "Both reviewers should be from two different organizations."3. "All reviewers and authors should be from different organizations." Review Comments Comments should be contextual. Comments should be actionable, and upon reading, authors should know what they need to do to improve the quality of the article. Avoid citation comments as much as possible. Only ask authors to cite references that are relevant to the article. Avoid single-line comments or no comments (e.g., Accept, Reject, good paper, Accept, bad paper, reject, etc.). Instead, provide proper reasoning for accepting or rejecting the paper. Providing relevant comments to improve a manuscript is a good review practice. Cover the following sections of the paper:a. Abstract: Comment on the abstract.b. Introduction: Comment on the introduction.c. Method/Proposed idea: Provide comments if you agree or disagree and suggest improvements to enhance the paper.d. Experiments & Results: Provide comments if you agree or disagree and suggest improvements to this section.e. Conclusions: Conclusions should align with the abstract and introduction based on experiments and outcomes.f. References: Comment on the relevance of references to the article; check for self-citation, ensuring authors have not cited more than three of their own articles. Reviewer Details All reviewers must mention their ORCID ( please go to your profile on seas transactions and add ORCID)