ICENSE is following IOP’s Editorial and Scientific Policy guideline. The peer review of papers published in the IOP Conference Series titles is managed by ICENSE editors.

ICENSE will complete a form describing how the papers were peer reviewed. This information will be published as part of the proceedings.

Peer review will be conducted through EDAS Conference Management System (https://www.edas.info/N32087). IOP Publishing would have the right to request peer review reports at any time.

ICENSE authors are requested to adhere to the following minimum standards:

• Unbiased consideration is given to all papers. Papers are considered regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors
• No terminology will be used that, in the opinion of IOP Publishing, is offensive or might be perceived to be offensive to others
• Authors and Editors agree to comply with our ethical policy
• IOP Publishing has the right to investigate any suspicions and/or allegations of misconduct
• Submission and peer review must be conducted in English.
• Reviewers shall give a clear statement of recommendation for each paper. Comments must be included to support their recommendation. These comments should be suitable for transmission to the author
• Editors and Organizers shall only accept papers where there is clear support from the reviewers

Conference papers must meet all the usual standards of quality for an IOP Publishing publication. However, reviewers will take into account the nature of conference papers. Review papers are also welcomed and accepted. Reviewers will consider background papers more favourably than would be normal for a regular paper. These allowances shall not go so far as to approve papers of low scientific standard. Papers that have been published in written form elsewhere should not be considered.

• Scientific merit: notably scientific rigour, accuracy and correctness
• Clarity of expression; communication of ideas; readability and discussion of concepts
• Sufficient discussion of the context of the work, and suitable referencing

• Originality: Is the work relevant and novel?
• Motivation: Does the problem considered have a sound motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific interest of the results
• Repetition: Have significant parts of the manuscript already been published?
• Length: Is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest to justify its length?

• Title: Is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
• Abstract: Does it contain the essential information of the article? Is it complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting service?
• Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: Are they essential and clear?
• Text and mathematics: Are they brief but still clear? If you recommend shortening, please suggest what should be removed
• Conclusion: Does the paper contain a clear conclusion. The conclusion should summarise what has been learned and why it is interesting and useful?