I wonder if it is possible for the same conference, which takes place in different countries for the years with different committees, to have slightly different approaches to evaluation? Does the assessment depend on the reviewer? Could it be that in one country it is easier to pass reviewers than in the other? Please share your experience and knowledge.
I have participated in several more or less respected conferences indexed in Scopus and / or in Web of Science. Based on my modest experience, I can roughly assess the current state of evaluation of submissions.
In my opinion, scholars from leading countries often apply the same (as to manuscripts) or similar criteria in evaluating submissions to a prestigious conference. Perhaps in Eastern countries, such a process is viewed somewhat more liberally.
It seems to me that science should not be too formalized, because grain can germinate even in "dirty" paper.
But the scale used is about the same.
-3 - strong reject
-2 - reject
-1 - weak reject
0 - borderline work
+1 - weak accept
+2 - accept
+3 - strong accept.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Academic Journals