Review Process
World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) conferences and journals hava a strong peer‑review system as a highly structured and strictly controlled process designed to ensure scientific quality, transparency, and ethical integrity. Every submitted paper first undergoes an initial evaluation by the Editor‑in‑Chief, who checks whether the manuscript fits the conference's or journal’s scope and meets basic scientific and formatting standards. If it passes this stage, the system automatically assigns the paper to reviewers whose expertise matches the topics selected by the author during submission. Once assigned, the paper is evaluated by multiple independent reviewers. World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) emphasizes that every single paper must undergo thorough peer review and that acceptance requires positive evaluations from several reviewers, not just one. Reviewers access the manuscript through the WSEAS platform, where they can track pending and completed reviews. Their evaluations focus on originality, scientific contribution, methodology, clarity, and correctness of results. The process is designed to follow COPE ethical guidelines, ensuring confidentiality, objectivity, and avoidance of conflicts of interest. A recent academic analysis of WSEAS peer review highlights that the organization positions itself as committed to rigorous, transparent, and ethically grounded evaluation practices, explicitly distancing itself from predatory publishing models and emphasizing the importance of multi‑stage, multi‑reviewer scrutiny.
Thei World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS) conferences follow this model: papers accepted for presentation are reviewed by conference organizers and then undergo an additional round of peer review by at least three reviewers before journal publication. Overall, the World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society (WSEAS)peer‑review system is very strict, multi‑layered, and ethically aligned, with an emphasis on reviewer expertise, multiple evaluations, and documented transparency.
