IWIS Editorial Notes for Reviewers

Simplified reviewer guidance aligned with IEEE conference review checks (not journal review).

Language: English | Revision basis: IWIS notes v1.1 (2019)

1-minute quick decision check

Is the paper on topic for IWIS (for example: impedance spectroscopy, EIT, impedance measurement, dielectric spectroscopy)?
Is there clear technical contribution and at least some reported or promised results?
Is novelty plausible against known prior work?
Is format compliant with the selected track (extended abstract: 1- or 2-column, max 2 pages; 6-page track: IEEE 2-column, max 6 pages)?

Reject quickly if clearly off-topic, no meaningful technical contribution, or no comparative/validating evidence.
Check whether substantially better prior work already exists and is ignored.

Use meaningful title-case wording; avoid hype words. Prefer "novel" over "new" where wording changes are needed.
Author names must match submission database records exactly.
Use full author names (no abbreviations where avoidable).
Minimum author metadata: name and affiliation. Group/lab, address, and email are recommended.

Expected flow: Abstract, Introduction, main numbered sections, Results, Conclusion, References.
Results must be included, or earlier results with a concrete promise for final results.
Prefer clear and neutral technical English; avoid excessive superlatives and unnecessary ornate phrasing.
Passive voice is generally preferred in technical statements; active voice may be used selectively for emphasis.
Review model is single-blind. Follow the conference single-blind policy consistently.

Extended Abstract track: maximum 2 pages; both 1-column and 2-column layouts are accepted.
6-page track: maximum 6 pages and IEEE conference 2-column layout is mandatory.
Use the official IWIS/IEEE template typography settings; do not manually override font sizes unless the conference instructions explicitly require it.

Refer to the conference submission instructions for the official template and formatting details.

Figures must be sharp, readable, and referenced by number in the text.
Caption format: "Fig. N. Caption text" (below the figure, plain style).
If multiple curves are plotted, include a legend.
For mixed measurands in one plot, use distinct y-axes with clear unit labels.
For Nyquist plots, equal axis graduation and near 1:1 aspect ratio are recommended.
If any figure is reused or adapted, cite the source in IEEE style directly in the caption.

Displayed equations should be readable, separated by whitespace, and numbered.
Tables should be editable text (not screenshots), labeled above, and referenced in the text.
Units must be explicit and consistent (for example, U / V, I / A, t / s, Time in seconds).
Use proper SI prefixes and symbols consistently (f, p, n, u, m, k, M, G, T).

Use IEEE citation format in both text and bibliography.
Aim for at least 3 recent references (typically from the last 5 years), where relevant.
Ensure each citation truly supports the claim where it appears.

Summarize mandatory changes in OpenConf review comments or by email if instructed by the chair team.
When title/author details are corrected, explicitly tell authors what was changed and why.

Use all five criteria in the review form with the 1-5 scale: 1 = Poor, 2 = Below average, 3 = Average, 4 = Good, 5 = Excellent.
Set the overall score based on technical contribution, evidence quality, and clarity, not only writing quality.
Typical recommendation mapping: Accept for strong papers (mostly 4-5), Minor Revision for generally good papers with limited fixes, Major Revision for substantial technical or validation gaps, Reject for off-topic or fundamentally weak work.
If recommendation and scores diverge, explain the reason explicitly in comments for chairs.