ETLTC Peer Review Structure

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

ETLTC follows a structured, supervised double-blind review process designed to promote fairness, objectivity, consistency, and academic quality in papers considered for publication in the conference proceedings. The process combines preliminary screening, anonymization, flexible group-based review, and centralized quality assurance under the supervision of the ETLTC Chair.

1. Initial Screening and Topic-Fit Assessment

Before papers are forwarded for review, the ETLTC Chair conducts an initial screening to assess their suitability for the conference proceedings journal. This stage focuses on the relevance of each paper to the scope and themes of the proceedings, its completeness, and its readiness to proceed to formal review.

Acceptance for consideration by the conference does not automatically mean that a paper is ready to be sent to reviewers. Each paper must first undergo this preliminary assessment to ensure that it is appropriate for the intended publication venue and sufficiently complete for meaningful evaluation. Therefore, submissions are not sent directly to reviewers.

2. Anonymization of Papers

Following the initial screening, the ETLTC Chair prepares the papers for double-blind review by removing author names, institutional affiliations, and other identifying information. References to institutions, countries, or other identifying contexts are also anonymized or generalized where appropriate, provided that doing so does not compromise the academic meaning or integrity of the paper.

This process is intended to minimize the potential influence of author identity, institutional affiliation, geographical origin, and other personal factors on the evaluation. Authors are expected to cooperate with the anonymization process where revisions are necessary to prepare their manuscripts for review.

3. Flexible Review Group Composition and Paper Assignment

ETLTC uses a group-based review system involving three separate review groups comprising faculty members and advanced students. These groups provide a framework for organizing and coordinating the review process; however, their composition is not fixed or permanent.

Members may be added to or removed from a group, and individual members may or may not be assigned papers during a particular review cycle. The ETLTC Chair manages these arrangements according to reviewer availability, subject-matter expertise, workload, and the requirements of the papers under consideration.

Rather than assigning each paper exclusively to a single reviewer, ETLTC assigns papers to designated review groups. Within each group, members can distribute and coordinate review tasks according to their respective expertise, experience, and confidence in evaluating the specific subject matter. Consequently, not every member is required to review every paper assigned to the group, and individual responsibilities may vary from one paper to another.

This flexible arrangement enables the review process to draw on relevant expertise while accommodating differences in reviewer availability and the specialized knowledge required for individual submissions.

4. Review and Consolidation of Comments

Each review group evaluates its assigned papers and prepares appropriate review comments and recommendations. The assessment may consider the paper's relevance, clarity, methodology, technical or conceptual soundness, originality, contribution, and overall suitability for publication, as applicable to the submission.

Once the review is complete, the reviewer returns the comments to the ETLTC Chair. The Chair manages the review records and enters the comments under the corresponding review group's designated account.

This centralized procedure supports consistent handling of review outcomes, systematic documentation, and appropriate separation between author identities and reviewers. It also ensures that review comments are processed through the established supervisory procedure before being communicated to authors.

5. Quality Assurance and Supervisory Oversight

The ETLTC Chair maintains overall supervision of the review process to ensure that the feedback provided is sufficiently complete, relevant, constructive, and appropriate to the paper under consideration.

If a review group's comments are incomplete, unclear, inconsistent, or otherwise inadequate, the chair may consult the group and revise or supplement the comments based on the group's feedback. Where appropriate, the Chair may make these corrections directly without returning the paper to the review group for another round of administrative processing.

This mechanism allows the Chair to address factual errors, omissions, unclear statements, and procedural inconsistencies promptly. It also helps ensure that review comments are properly formulated, relevant to the manuscript, and suitable for communicating meaningful feedback to authors.

The Chair's supervisory role is intended to safeguard the quality and consistency of the review process. Any revisions to review comments are undertaken for clarification, completeness, accuracy, and appropriateness, rather than to predetermine an outcome or replace the substantive academic judgment of the review process.

6. Commitment to Fairness, Integrity, and Review Quality

ETLTC's double-blind review procedure combines preliminary screening, manuscript anonymization, flexible group-based assessment, and centralized quality assurance. The process is designed to reduce avoidable bias, accommodate different levels of reviewer expertise and availability, and promote constructive and academically relevant evaluation.

By assigning papers to review groups rather than relying exclusively on individual reviewers, ETLTC provides flexibility in distributing responsibilities and drawing on complementary perspectives. At the same time, the ETLTC Chair's continued oversight helps maintain consistency, identify and correct errors, and ensure that review feedback meets appropriate standards of completeness and relevance.

Through these procedures, ETLTC seeks to support a fair, transparent, and responsible review process that protects the integrity of scholarly evaluation and promotes the quality of papers considered for publication in the conference proceedings.

Reviewers’ Responsibilities and Code of Conduct

ETLTC expects all reviewers participating in its double-blind review process to contribute to a fair, constructive, consistent, and academically responsible evaluation of submitted papers. Reviewers are expected to exercise independent judgment, respect confidentiality, and provide feedback that helps authors improve their work while supporting the quality and integrity of the conference proceedings.

1. Objective and Fair Evaluation

Reviewers must evaluate papers objectively and impartially, focusing on the quality, relevance, originality, clarity, methodology, evidence, and scholarly contribution of the submitted work, as applicable. Assessments must be based on the content of the manuscript rather than the author's identity, institutional affiliation, geographical origin, personal characteristics, or other irrelevant considerations.

Reviewers should distinguish between substantive academic weaknesses and differences in research approaches, interpretations, or perspectives.

2. Appropriate Use of Expertise

Reviewers should undertake evaluation tasks only when they have sufficient subject-matter knowledge and confidence to provide meaningful feedback. Since ETLTC follows a flexible, group-based review model, members of a designated review group may distribute tasks according to their respective expertise, experience, and availability.

Reviewers should communicate with their group when a paper, a particular methodological component, or a specialized technical issue falls outside their competence. The group may then reallocate the task or seek appropriate input through the established review coordination process. Reviewers are not expected to evaluate every paper assigned to their group.

3. Thoroughness and Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are responsible for providing comments that are clear, specific, relevant, and constructive. Feedback should identify the paper's strengths, limitations, and areas requiring clarification or improvement. Where possible, reviewers should explain the reasoning behind their assessments and offer practical suggestions for addressing identified weaknesses.

Comments should be professional and respectful. Personal criticism, dismissive language, unsupported allegations, and comments unrelated to the academic quality of the paper are inappropriate.

4. Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

Reviewers must treat all assigned manuscripts and related review materials as confidential. They must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or discuss unpublished manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must respect the double-blind nature of the process and must not attempt to identify the authors unnecessarily. If a reviewer recognizes a possible conflict of interest or believes that author identification could materially affect impartiality, the matter should be reported to the ETLTC Chair.

Manuscripts and their contents must not be used for personal, professional, or research purposes outside the authorized review process.

5. Responsible Collaboration Within Review Groups

Reviewers may collaborate with other members of their designated group to allocate review tasks, discuss relevant academic issues, and consolidate feedback. Such collaboration must preserve confidentiality, maintain professional conduct, and support a reasoned assessment of the paper.

Each participating reviewer is responsible for ensuring that their own contributions are accurate, evidence-based, and appropriate. Group members should not approve or endorse comments they have not adequately considered, nor should they allow differences in seniority or status to substitute for reasoned academic judgment.

Only authorized review group members should participate in the assessment, and review materials must not be shared beyond the group without the ETLTC Chair's authorization.

6. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must promptly inform the ETLTC Chair of any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their impartiality. Such circumstances may include close personal or professional relationships with an author, direct involvement in the submitted work, competing interests, or other circumstances that could influence the assessment.

The ETLTC Chair will determine the appropriate response, which may include reassigning the paper or excluding the reviewer from the relevant evaluation.

7. Accuracy, Integrity, and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should assess the credibility and consistency of the arguments, methods, data, evidence, and references presented in the manuscript, as appropriate to its subject and research design.

If reviewers identify possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, inappropriate attribution, serious methodological concerns, or other potential research-integrity issues, they should report these concerns confidentially to the ETLTC Chair and provide a clear explanation of the basis for their observations.

Reviewers should avoid making unsupported accusations or treating unverified suspicions as established facts. The ETLTC Chair will determine the appropriate follow-up action.

8. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewers should complete their assigned tasks within the agreed timeframe and communicate promptly if availability, workload, or other circumstances prevent timely completion. They should inform the ETLTC Chair or the relevant group coordinator when additional time, reassignment, or specialized expertise is required.

Prompt communication is particularly important in ETLTC's flexible review system, where assignments and group membership may change according to availability and the requirements of individual papers.

9. Review Recommendations and Academic Judgment

Reviewers should provide reasoned recommendations based on the manuscript's academic merits and its suitability for the intended proceedings. Recommendations should be supported by the observations and comments provided in the review.

Reviewers must not allow personal preferences, external pressure, or unrelated considerations to determine their assessments. They should also recognize that the review process involves academic judgment and that the final handling of review outcomes remains subject to the established ETLTC editorial and supervisory procedures.

10. Cooperation With Quality Assurance

Reviewers are expected to cooperate with the ETLTC Chair when clarification, correction, or further explanation of review comments is required. The Chair may request clarification or consult the review group to ensure that the feedback is complete, accurate, consistent, and suitable for communication to the authors.

Where the Chair identifies incomplete, unclear, or potentially erroneous comments, reviewers should respond constructively and help resolve the issue. The purpose of this oversight is to improve the quality and reliability of the review record, not to predetermine the outcome of the assessment.

11. Professional Conduct and Accountability

Reviewers must conduct themselves professionally throughout the review process. They should respect the contributions of other group members, maintain confidentiality, meet their responsibilities, and raise concerns through the appropriate channels.

Reviewers must not misrepresent the extent of their evaluation, claim expertise they do not possess, or knowingly provide misleading or unsupported feedback. Participation in the review process carries a responsibility to uphold the academic standards and reputation of ETLTC and the proceedings in which the reviewed papers may be published.

12. Overall Responsibility

By participating in the ETLTC review process, reviewers agree to contribute to an evaluation system based on fairness, confidentiality, expertise, constructive criticism, and academic integrity. Their responsibilities extend beyond providing comments: they also include recognizing the limits of their expertise, cooperating appropriately within review groups, communicating conflicts or concerns, and supporting the consistent application of review standards.

The ETLTC Chair retains overall responsibility for coordinating the review process and overseeing the completeness and appropriateness of review records. Reviewers, in turn, are responsible for ensuring that their individual contributions meet the standards of quality, integrity, and professionalism expected of scholarly peer review.

Group Review Accountability

ETLTC follows a group-based review model in which each paper is assigned to a designated review group rather than exclusively to an individual reviewer. The group is collectively responsible for ensuring that the review is completed appropriately, that the comments are relevant and constructive, and that the assessment reflects a reasoned consideration of the paper's academic merits.

Within each group, review tasks may be distributed among members according to their expertise, availability, and familiarity with the subject matter. Not every member is required to review every assigned paper, and the composition of the groups may change over time. The allocation and distribution of review tasks within each group are managed independently by the group members. The ETLTC Chair does not supervise or direct how individual groups distribute assignments among their members. Each group is responsible for organizing its internal workflow and determining which members are best suited to undertake particular review tasks.

Members who undertake specific review tasks are individually accountable for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and quality of their respective contributions. The designated group is collectively responsible for consolidating these contributions into a coherent set of review comments and ensuring that the resulting assessment is sufficiently complete and suitable for submission to the ETLTC Chair. Group members should not endorse comments they have not adequately considered, and significant differences in academic judgment should be addressed through appropriate discussion.

The ETLTC Chair retains overall responsibility for coordinating the review process at the organizational level, including the initial screening and anonymization of papers, assignment of papers to review groups, management of submitted review records, and quality assurance of the comments received. This responsibility does not extend to managing the internal division of work within individual groups.

Upon receiving the review comments, the Chair assesses their completeness, clarity, relevance, and appropriateness. Where comments require clarification, correction, or improvement, the Chair may consult the relevant group and revise or supplement the review record as necessary, incorporating appropriate feedback from group members. The Chair is responsible for ensuring that the finalized comments are suitable for communication to the authors.

Accordingly, accountability operates at three complementary levels: individual accountability for the review tasks undertaken, collective accountability of each group for the completeness and coherence of its review, and organizational and quality-assurance accountability of the ETLTC Chair for the proper administration of the overall process. This arrangement preserves the autonomy of each review group in managing its internal assignments while maintaining appropriate oversight of the quality and integrity of the review process as a whole.

Group Submission Responsibilities

Each ETLTC review group is responsible for submitting a complete, coherent, and appropriately consolidated set of review comments for every paper assigned to it. The group must ensure that its submission reflects the work undertaken by the participating members and provides a sufficiently clear and reasoned assessment to support the subsequent review process.

1. Consolidation of Review Comments

The group must consolidate the contributions of the members who participated in reviewing a paper into a single, coherent set of comments. The submission should avoid unnecessary duplication, contradictory statements, unsupported judgments, and irrelevant observations. Where members hold differing academic opinions, the group should address these differences through internal discussion and ensure that the submitted comments represent a reasoned assessment of the paper.

2. Completeness and Quality

Before submission, the group must check that its review comments are complete, understandable, constructive, and relevant to the manuscript. Comments should identify significant strengths and weaknesses, explain the basis for critical observations, and provide practical recommendations where appropriate. The group should also ensure that its assessment and recommendation are consistent with the comments provided.

3. Internal Coordination and Responsibility

Each group is independently responsible for organizing its internal workflow, distributing review tasks, coordinating contributions, and preparing the final submission. The ETLTC Chair does not manage or supervise these internal arrangements. The group may designate a member to coordinate the preparation and submission of its consolidated review, but such a designation is an internal organizational decision rather than a requirement imposed by the Chair.

4. Accountability for Submitted Content

The group is collectively accountable for the completeness, coherence, and appropriateness of the review comments submitted in its name. Individual members remain accountable for the accuracy, integrity, and quality of the contributions they personally provide. Submission under the group's designated account indicates that the review is being submitted on behalf of the group; it does not imply that every group member personally reviewed the paper or contributed to every comment.

5. Confidentiality and Professional Standards

The group must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and all associated review materials. Its submission must comply with ETLTC's double-blind review requirements and must not include unnecessary identifying information, personal criticism, unsupported allegations, or other material unrelated to the academic evaluation.

6. Submission to the ETLTC Chair and Subsequent Quality Assurance

Once finalized, the group must submit its consolidated review comments to the ETLTC Chair through the established review procedure. The Chair is responsible for receiving and managing the submitted comments, assessing their completeness and appropriateness, and ensuring that the review record is suitable for communication to the authors.

If the Chair identifies unclear, incomplete, inconsistent, or potentially erroneous comments, the Chair may request clarification or feedback from the group and may correct, revise, or supplement the comments directly where appropriate. The paper need not be returned to the group solely for administrative correction or improvement of the review record.

7. Timeliness and Communication

Each group is responsible for completing and submitting its reviews within the agreed timeframe. If delays, insufficient expertise, reviewer unavailability, or other circumstances prevent timely completion, the group should inform the ETLTC Chair promptly so that any necessary adjustments to the overall review arrangements can be considered.

Overall principle: Each review group is autonomous in managing its internal assignments and preparing its review submissions, while remaining collectively accountable for the quality and completeness of the reviews submitted under its designated account. The ETLTC Chair retains organizational oversight and final responsibility for quality assurance and the proper administration of the overall review process.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse