FTNCT'09

Review Guidelines

FTNCT-09 Reviewer Guidelines (Procedia Computer Science, Elsevier)

Please review the manuscripts carefully and constructively, following the professional standards recommended by Elsevier. Your evaluation will help ensure only high-quality, original, and technically strong papers are accepted for publication in Procedia Computer Science (PCS).

1. General Review Instructions

Please note that all review comments must be submitted through the CMT portal only. Any review comments shared through email will not be considered for evaluation or certification.

You are not required to check the similarity score of the assigned manuscript. The Organizing Team will verify plagiarism and similarity compliance at a later stage.

If you suspect significant AI-generated text (e.g., unnatural phrasing, repetitive language, or unexplained results), please report this observation clearly in your comments to the Technical Program Committee (TPC).

Provide technical, professional, and constructive feedback. Avoid harsh or dismissive language; instead, focus on how the authors can improve the quality and clarity of their work.

If you believe the technical contribution is limited or lacks novelty, please state this clearly and justify your view with specific reasoning or examples.

Review comments shorter than five lines will not be considered for manuscripts that are either accepted or recommended for revision. Kindly ensure your feedback is substantive and meaningful.

A manuscript should not be rejected without providing detailed, manuscript-specific technical comments. Please avoid writing general or vague statements such as “The paper is not good” or “Needs improvement.”

A Reviewer Certificate will be issued to those who complete a minimum of four technical reviews with constructive feedback.

The deadline to complete all assigned reviews is 10 November 2026. Kindly plan your review work accordingly to ensure timely completion.

2. Abstract and Introduction

Ensure that the abstract clearly conveys the objective, methodology, results, and major contributions of the paper.

The introduction should present a clear research motivation, highlight existing gaps, and define the novel contribution of the study.

Suggest improvements where the problem statement, research questions, or contribution is vague or poorly contextualized.

3. Literature Review

Check whether the literature review is comprehensive and updated, especially including references from 2020–2026.

Encourage authors to include recent research findings from reputed sources such as IEEE, Elsevier, Springer, and ACM.

Identify whether the literature review connects logically to the proposed work and effectively justifies the research need.

4. Methodology

Evaluate the technical depth, clarity, and correctness of the proposed methodology.

Verify whether the approach is novel, justified, and adequately compared with existing methods.

Recommend inclusion of a comparative analysis or table if the authors have not explained how their work improves upon prior approaches.

5. Experimental Analysis and Results

Assess the experimental design, dataset or simulation details, evaluation metrics, and interpretation of results.

Ensure that all figures, tables, and graphs are:

In editable format (not embedded images or screenshots).

Properly labeled and cited in the text.

Suggest improvements if the analysis lacks adequate discussion, validation, or comparative evaluation with benchmark techniques.

6. Discussion and Conclusion

Check whether the discussion logically interprets the results and links them back to the objectives.

The conclusion should summarize the main findings, emphasize the research significance, and outline future research directions or practical applications.

7. References

Ensure that all references follow the APA (7th Edition) citation style.

Verify that references include recent and relevant publications (preferably from 2020–2026).

Check that all citations are accurate and consistent (author names, year, journal title, page numbers, etc.) and that every in-text citation appears in the reference list.

8. Overall Assessment

Summarize your evaluation in terms of:

Novelty and originality

Technical soundness

Clarity and structure

Theoretical or practical contribution

Suitability for publication in Procedia Computer Science

If you recommend rejection or major revision, kindly provide specific, factual, and constructive reasons to support your decision.

9. Review Tone and Professional Ethics

Maintain objectivity, confidentiality, and professionalism throughout the review process.

Provide balanced comments — acknowledge strengths as well as areas needing improvement.

Avoid personal, biased, or speculative remarks.

Ensure your comments are actionable, respectful, and beneficial for both the authors and the editorial team.

Past Organisations

CDAC	University of Buenos Aires, Argentina
University of Informatics Sciences, Cuba	University of Cádiz, Spain
Luleå University of Technology, Sweden	Institute of Control Sciences of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia
University of Malaga, Spain	Technical University of Kosice, Slovakia
University of Habana, Cuba	Southern Federal University, Russia