Review Process and Policy
GAII 2027 applies a
double-anonymized peer-review process. Author identities and
affiliations are concealed from reviewers during review, while reviewer
identities are not disclosed to authors. Authors should therefore
prepare manuscripts in a form suitable for anonymous review.
Before
external review, each submission undergoes an initial assessment by the
conference committee to determine its relevance to the scope of GAII
2027, compliance with principal submission requirements, and basic
suitability as an academic conference paper. Submissions presenting
evident concerns regarding academic integrity, publication ethics, or
submission compliance may be declined without proceeding to full peer
review.
Each eligible manuscript will normally be evaluated
independently by at least two reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewer assignments will take account of the subject area and
methodological characteristics of the submission. Reviewers will
normally be allotted 14 calendar days to complete their assessments.
Where reviews are substantially divergent or insufficient to support a
decision, additional review may be sought.
Reviewers are asked to
assess the relevance, originality, significance, technical or
methodological soundness, adequacy of supporting evidence, engagement
with relevant prior work, and clarity of presentation. The form of
evaluation may vary according to the nature of the contribution,
including theoretical, methodological, empirical, system-oriented,
interaction-oriented, and application-oriented research.
Following
peer review, a submission may be accepted, declined, or returned for
revision. Both minor and major revisions may be requested where the
identified issues can reasonably be addressed within the conference
schedule.
For a minor revision, authors will normally be allotted
up to 7 calendar days to submit a revised manuscript and response to the
review comments. Minor revisions may include clarification,
presentation improvements, limited additional analysis, or correction of
specific deficiencies.
For a major revision, authors will
normally be allotted up to 14 calendar days. Major revisions may require
more substantial changes to the methodology, analysis, evaluation,
discussion, or positioning of the contribution. The applicable deadline
will be stated in the decision communication.
Revised manuscripts
will, where appropriate and practicable, be reassessed by one or more of
the original reviewers. Additional or alternative reviewers may be
assigned where reviewer availability, conflicts of interest, the nature
of the revision, or the need for further expertise makes this necessary.
An
invitation to revise does not imply acceptance. Final decisions are
made by the conference committee after consideration of the review
reports, the revised manuscript and authors' responses where applicable,
and the overall academic quality and suitability of the submission for
GAII 2027.
GAII 2027 expects authors and reviewers to comply with
appropriate standards of research integrity, publication ethics,
confidentiality, authorship, attribution, conflicts of interest, and
responsible use of data and research materials. Relevant ethical,
privacy, security, and data-use considerations should also be addressed
where applicable.
A submission may be rejected, or an earlier
decision reconsidered, if significant academic, ethical, or
publication-related concerns are identified. Where such concerns arise
after a paper has entered the publication process or has been published,
the matter may be referred to the proceedings publisher or other
responsible body in accordance with the applicable publication policies.
Assessment Criteria
Reviewers are requested to consider the manuscript, with particular attention to the following questions:
1. Scope and relevance
Does
the paper address a subject that falls within the scope of GAII 2027
and make a clear contribution to one or more relevant areas of
generative AI, intelligent interaction, intelligent agents, embodied AI,
or associated intelligent systems and applications?
2. Originality and contribution
Does
the work contain sufficiently original ideas, methods, findings,
analyses, system designs, or applications, and is the contribution
clearly distinguished from existing research?
3. Significance of the work
Is
the research question or problem meaningful to the relevant research
community, and do the findings provide a useful scientific, technical,
methodological, or application-oriented contribution?
4. Technical and methodological soundness
Are
the methods, models, algorithms, experimental procedures, system
designs, or analytical approaches appropriate for the stated research
objectives and described with sufficient rigor?
5. Evaluation and supporting evidence
Are
the principal claims adequately supported by experiments, analyses,
comparisons, empirical observations, user studies, case studies, or
other forms of evidence appropriate to the type of contribution? Where
relevant, are baselines, evaluation measures, datasets, and experimental
settings appropriately selected and explained?
6. Interpretation of results
Are
the results analyzed with appropriate care? Are limitations,
uncertainties, or relevant constraints acknowledged where necessary, and
are the conclusions consistent with the evidence presented?
7. Engagement with prior research
Does
the manuscript demonstrate appropriate knowledge of relevant literature
and position its contribution clearly in relation to existing methods,
systems, findings, or theoretical work?
8. Clarity and presentation
Is
the manuscript logically structured and sufficiently clear for its
intended readership? Are the research objectives, methods, results,
figures, tables, and conclusions presented in a coherent and
understandable manner?
9. Research and publication integrity
Where
applicable, does the work appropriately address matters such as
research ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, data provenance and
use, privacy, security, citation and attribution, and other integrity
considerations relevant to the reported research?
