Acceptance Criteria

Evaluation criteria

Reviewers evaluate four areas: originality, significance, presentation, and overall impression. Each area uses a five-point Likert scale: Strong Reject, Reject, Neutral, Accept, and Strong Accept.

CompSysTech places particular emphasis on the originality and significance of the contribution. The four criteria contribute to the summarized review rating with these weights:

The summarized review rating is a weighted sum of these components. The conference management system then combines the ratings from the three independent reviews into an overall paper rating.

High-rated papers are accepted and low-rated papers are rejected. Papers rated near Neutral depend on reviewer discussion and consensus. Programme Committee chairs do not override that process. Because the criteria have different weights, a negative rating for originality or significance has more impact than a positive rating for presentation.

Paper scope

Each reviewer also identifies how closely the paper relates to Information Technology:

• The paper is entirely related to Information Technology.
• The paper is multidisciplinary, with most contributions in Information Technology.
• The paper is multidisciplinary, with most contributions outside Information Technology.
• The paper is completely outside the scope of CompSysTech.

Scope rule: If two of the three reviewers conclude that most contributions fall outside Information Technology, the paper may be rejected regardless of its other evaluation ratings.

Plagiarism and self-plagiarism

From 2007 through 2024, CompSysTech proceedings were published by ACM and indexed in Scopus and DBLP. Since 2025, conference papers have been published in IEEE Xplore. The conference therefore follows IEEE publication ethics and plagiarism policies.

Reviewers and Programme Committee chairs may check submissions for plagiarism and self-plagiarism. A paper may be rejected when substantial portions have already been published, whether by the same authors or by others.

Detecting such issues during review protects authors from the more serious consequences of a post-publication ethics finding, including a public notice attached to the paper in the digital library.

Reviewer discussion

At the end of the review period, reviewers assigned to the same paper may discuss it anonymously and work toward a joint recommendation. During this discussion, reviewers may revise their initial assessment and final recommendation.

Addition A1: Published 24 May 2015 as an explanatory amendment concerning the discussion phase and virtual Programme Committee meeting.