GAII 2027

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?