Reviewer Guidelines
Scopus has very clear set of guidelines for indexing and most people forget some basic
requirements:

Manuscripts: Quality
What is the definition of a quality manuscript? Here is the answer:
1. Formatting as per the guidelines by the organizer/publisher
2. Image quality: Should not be copied image, should not be copyright image or should not be screenshots from other papers.
3. Grammar: can be corrected internally
4. Author Affiliations and email ID’s should be correct and functional at the time of indexing.
5. Citations: No more than 3 self citation is allowed
6. No politically sensitive articles, no advertisement of a particular ideology, politician/individual or political party.
7. Scientifically correct: Wrong logic or wrong scientific claims would be rejected
8. Manuscripts must be relevant to conference theme/scope else donot consider them

Plagiarism Report:
No more than 10% similarity index is allowed, excluding references.
Use only iThenticate or Turntinin software

Review Quality:
1. Atleast 2 Reviewers are needed.
2. Both reviewers should be from two different organizations
3. The reviewers, and authors should be from different organizations

Review comments:

1. The comments should be contextual.
2. The comments should be actionable and upon reading the authors should know what they have to do.
3. Avoid citation comments as much as possible. Only ask the authors to cite those
references that are relevant to the article. SCOPUS views this part with extra caution.
4. Avoid single line comments or no comments: eg Accept | Reject | good paper Accept| bad paper reject etc. Instead provide a proper reasoning why the paper should be accepted or rejected.
5. Providing in-depth & relevant comments is a good review practice. Cover the following sections of the paper
a. Abstract: comment on the abstract
b. Introduction: comment on the introduction
c. Method/Proposed idea: provide comments if you agree or disagree and what can be improved to make the paper better.
d. Experiments & results: Provide comments if you agree or disagree and what can be done to improve the section.
e. Conclusions: Conclusions should be in-line with Abstract and introduction based on experiments and outcomes.
f. References: comment if the references are relevant to the article, scan if authors have self cited more than 3 of their own articles.