Scientific coherence
The research question, theory, method, evidence and conclusions should fit together. Empirical findings, conceptual arguments and illustrative scenarios must be distinguished. Limits and uncertainty should be explained.
Specific and respectful feedback
A recommendation should identify the concern and explain its relevance. Researchers should be able to understand the reasoning, verify it and respond. Feedback should prioritise issues affecting the substance of the research.
Traceable evidence and author responsibility
Sources, data and material research decisions must be traceable. References and findings must never be invented. Authors remain responsible for their claims and for acknowledging contributions and the use of supporting tools under the rules that apply to their work.
Responsible use of AI
AI can help identify possible inconsistencies and suggest improvements. Its output may be incomplete or wrong. Researchers must check suggestions against their sources, methods and evidence. A result showing no detected issue is not proof of correctness or publication readiness.
Constructive human peer review
Official ISPC peer review should also provide specific, respectful and development-oriented feedback. Its independent judgement and quality requirements remain in place. Keeping private development records separate does not prevent official reviewers from helping authors understand how their work can improve.
Independent official review
Our design requires the manuscript development workspace to remain separate from the official ISPC submission and review system. There must be no shared manuscripts, reports, status, usage histories or user accounts between the two systems. Private development records must not be available through the conference system to its reviewers or decision-makers. Authors choose and submit their final manuscript separately.
Fair access and transparent interests
Using development support, or paying any future service fee, must not provide an advantage in a publication decision. Service terms and relevant conflicts of interest should be transparent.
Clear limits and accountable services
Each service must have a defined scope, responsible contact and realistic capacity. Before manuscript uploads open, users must receive clear information about data handling, providers, retention and deletion. Concerns about feedback should have an identified route for response.