The DIIAC 2025 provides double-blind peer review for all the material submitted. Some of the submissions are rejected without being sent out for external per review on the grounds of priority, insufficient originality and scientific flaws. A decision on such papers is taken quickly, usually within 7-10 days.

The remaining manuscripts should be evaluated by two reviewers or by the anonymous expert member of the technical committees, usually within 50-60 days. Authors are welcome to suggest suitable independent reviewers.

Once the paper draft was reviewed and corrected draft (if it necessary) after comments from reviewers were received. The final decision concerning the publishing is made by the technical program chair usually within 10-15 days.

The technical program chair is the competent authority in taking decision(s) on selection or rejection of the manuscripts of all the research/review/similar articles submitted to the DIIAC 2025. The decision taken by the technical program chair is final in all respects and no further comments/communications from authors in this regard is expected.

Reviewers evaluates the submitted paper based on the following criteria:
- Originality of the paper
- Theoretical contribution
- Innovation of the paper
- Accuracy of the method
- Discussion of the results
- Paper presentation and clarity
- Literature reviews of the related works
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines

Ethical considerations are vital when conducting a review, and it is crucial to be aware of potential issues. Should you encounter any of the following situations, we advise contacting the conference's secretary immediately.

1. Potential Conflicts of Interest
We urge reviewers to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and communicate with conference's secretary if there's uncertainty about what may constitute a conflict. Conflicts of interest might include but are not limited to:
(1) Affiliation: Reviewers working at the same institution as any of the authors.
(2) Academic Connection: Any academic interaction with the authors in the past three years, including co-authoring, collaboration, or joint grant holding.
(3) Personal Relationship: Any close personal relationship, rivalry, or antipathy with any of the authors.
(4) Financial Interest: Potential financial gain or loss from the publication of the manuscript.
(5) Non-financial Conflicts: Other non-financial conflicts of interest (political, personal, religious, ideological, academic, intellectual, commercial or any other) with any of the authors.

2. Declaration of Confidentiality
DIIAC 2025 operates a rigorous peer review process that requires reviewers to uphold strict confidentiality. Until the manuscript is published, the content, including the abstract, should remain confidential. Reviewers should avoid revealing their identities to the authors, either through their comments or metadata in reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.
Reviewers may consult with colleagues from their research group given the confidentiality of the manuscript is upheld. If a reviewer wishes to involve a colleague in the review process, they must first inform the conference's secretary.
If reviewers wish to disclose their identities, they can choose to do so by signing the review report. However, in all other instances, review reports are deemed confidential and will only be disclosed with the explicit permission of the reviewer.
We urge all our reviewers to respect the confidentiality of the review process and treat manuscripts as confidential documents. It is against our policy to disclose any aspect of the review process or the manuscript to anyone who is not directly involved.

3. Duplicate Publication or Submission
If you suspect the manuscript has been previously published or concurrently submitted to another conference, please report this. Authors are obligated to disclose any prior publication or submission of their work for the conference secretary's consideration, and proper attribution should be given if applicable.

4. Plagiarism
DIIAC 2025 takes instances of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or any other breaches of publication best practices very seriously. We strive to protect our authors' rights and always investigate claims of plagiarism or misuse of published works. Furthermore, we seek to maintain the reputation of our conference against any form of malpractice.