Reviewer Instructions
Thank you for serving as a reviewer for the 33rd Symposium on Hydraulic Machinery and Systems.The initial review phase is now closed, and the platform is open for authors to submit their revised papers until July 22. The process will be reopened for reviewers from July 23 until 25, 2026 for the final decision.
July
Peer Review Policy & Guidelines
Below are the official guidelines, evaluation metrics, and review criteria to be used by our reviewers within the CMT platform.
⚡ Quick Reviewer Guide
- Review Model: Single-blind peer review process. Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but your reviewer identity remains completely anonymous. Every paper is sent to two independent reviewers.
- Originality: Assess the level of novelty. Creative approaches to existing techniques deserve a good rating, while pioneering or revolutionary ideas deserve an Excellent rating.
- Significance & Impact: Does the work bring clear advances and new insights to the field? Check if the results are purely incremental or trivial.
- Format & Template: Layout orientation. Check layout consistency, centered equations, numerical reference format, and the inclusion of the acknowledgements section.
- Final Recommendation: Select one of the four official options in the CMT platform: Accept, Accept with minor revision, Major revision (only one round allowed), or Reject.
Detailed Policy Sections
1. The Review & Editorial Process
First Editorial Decision
When a submission is received, the editorial office previews the article to determine if it conforms to the symposium’s requirements (correct formatting and plagiarism check), and then routes the article to reviewers based on their specific field of expertise.
Peer Review Allocation
Papers for review are assigned to independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field using a single-blind peer review model. Each manuscript is evaluated by two reviewers. Reviewers are not identified to the authors, but the submitted manuscripts include the authors’ names for technical evaluation.
Reviewer Recommendations
Based on the thorough evaluation of the manuscript, reviewers select one of the following official recommendations in the toolkit system:
- Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication as it is.
- Accept with minor revision: The paper requires minor adjustments before formal acceptance.
- Major revision: Substantial modifications and technical updates are required (maximum of one round allowed).
- Reject: The manuscript is flawed, lacks novelty, or contains critical technical errors.
2. Official Quality Assessment Criteria (Scoring 1-10)
Reviewers assess and score manuscripts on a scale from 1 to 10 (Unsatisfactory, Needs Improvement, Good, Very Good, Excellent) based on five critical dimensions:
1. Originality
A measure of the novelty of the ideas and techniques reported in the manuscript compared to existing literature. Articles presenting virtually no new ideas should receive a poor rating (1-2); minor adaptations receive a needs improvement rating (3-4). Ideas or techniques approached in an original, creative way deserve a good rating (5-6). Manuscripts introducing highly original ideas score very good (7-8), and pioneering or revolutionary concepts must be awarded an Excellent rating (9-10).
2. Scientific Rigour
A measure of how well the experiment or study has been carried out. Reviewers evaluate the completeness of the methodology for reproducibility, the appropriateness of the analysis and discussion, including the testability of theoretical predictions or modeling.
3. Significance & Impact
Measures whether the work brings clear advances and new insights to the article’s field. Reviewers must carefully check the results: trivial or purely incremental results that offer little to no real-world influence must be given a low score (1-2). Minor field advancements are rated as needs improvement (3-4) or good (5-6); papers providing significant new insights receive a very good rating (7-8); and major breakthroughs score excellent (9-10).
4. Clarity & Language
Measures the quality of writing and how well the authors convey information. Broken, unintelligible English scores poor (1-2); text requiring significant language editing is rated as needs improvement (3-4); clear, understandable text with minor issues is rated good (5-6); and well-written, structurally complete papers score very good (7-8) or excellent (9-10).
5. Format & Template Adherence (Layout Guidelines)
Please use this section as a supportive guide to direct authors toward the ideal visual standard of the symposium:
- General Alignment: Observe if the text flows correctly according to the official layout, pointing out any misaligned items or structural inconsistencies.
- Figures & Margins: Guide the authors if you find non-standard figures or elements that breach the margins defined in the template.
- Equations: Check if mathematical equations are properly centered on the page.
- References: Ensure that the final list and in-text citations follow the numerical format strictly (e.g., [1], [2]).
- Acknowledgements: Do not forget to verify that the acknowledgements section has been included before the references list.
3. Reviewer Guidelines (Dos & Don’ts)
The Reviewer Checklist
- DO: Provide unbiased, constructive, and evidence-based reviews.
- DO: Reject manuscripts with gross technical errors even if well written.
- DON’T: Unreasonably delay in providing the review report or unfairly criticize a competitor’s work.
4. Adjudication Process
Use of an Adjudicator
In cases where reviewer reports present opposing views, the manuscript and reports are sent to an expert Editorial Board Member to adjudicate. The board member evaluates both positions, provides a final recommendation, and a definitive publication decision is made.