Acceptance decisions related to the submitted papers will be based on both: closed, double-blind reviews and open, non-blind reviews. Consequently:

1. Abstracts and draft papers submitted to PISTA 2025 Organizing Committee will be sent to, at least, three members of the conference Program Committee and/or to additional reviewers for its respective double-blind reviews; and
2. the abstracts/papers will also be submitted to reviewers nominated by their respective authors for its non-blind review. The author(s) of each submitted extended abstract should nominate at least one reviewer. The author(s) of each submitted draft paper should nominate at least two reviewers. Authors of any kind of submission can nominate a maximum of three reviewers for the non-blind review of their respective submitted paper.

Acceptance of a submitted paper will be based on both kinds of reviewing. The selection of the best 25%-30% papers, for their publication in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI), will also be done based on both kinds of reviewing.

Several studies have shown the strength and the weaknesses of these two methods of reviewing. Many editors and authors have also addressed this issue, some of whom have concluded that the reviewing should be double-blind and some others reached the opposite conclusion. David Kaplan (a highly cited author), for example, stated that to overcome the weaknesses of peer-reviewing and to fix it "Review of a manuscript would be solicited from colleagues by the authors. The first task of these reviewers would be to identify revisions that could be made to improve the manuscript. Second, the reviewers would be responsible for writing an evaluation of the revised work." [David Kaplan's article titled "How to fix Peer Review" (The Scientist, Volume 19, Issue 1, Page 10, Jun. 6, 2005) can also be accessed at http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16474/title/How-to-Fix-Peer-Review].

Since both of these reviewing methods are opposites without contradiction between them, both methods can be used in a way as to complement one another, getting their advantages and reducing their respective disadvantages. This is the aim of PISTA 2025 Organizing Committee when choosing to combine both of them in the reviewing process of the papers that are submitted to the conference

Organizers of invited sessions are autonomous with regards to the reviewing method to be used in the reviewing process of the papers to be submitted to their respective sessions. They can use any of these two methods or some combination of them.

In some cases, like it is the case of Invited Papers, the CVs of the authors will also support the decision regarding the acceptance, or non-acceptance, of the respective paper.

If the reviewers selected for the review of a given paper do not make their respective reviews before the papers acceptance deadline, the selection committee may inform the respective author about this fact.

The reviewing process of abstracts, case studies, position papers, reports, white papers, panel presentations and round table proposals will be based on the relevance of the topic, its potential for interdisciplinary communications, its educational value and/or its analogical thinking potential.

Final versions of all accepted papers, extended abstracts, and short abstracts that have at least one of their authors with a confirmed registration status in the conference will be included in both versions of the conference proceedings (hard copy and CD). Papers received after the respective deadline will be included in the post-conference proceedings volume, if it is not feasible to include them in the pre-conference proceedings. Any error that results in the non-inclusion of a paper that should have been included in the proceedings will be corrected by including such paper in the post-conference volume of the proceeding.

Each accepted paper is candidate for being a best paper of its respective session and, consequently, it might be candidate for a second reviewing process to be made by the reviewers of the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics (JSCI), for its possible inclusion among the best 25%-30% papers presented at the conference which will be selected and published in the JSCI, after doing possible modifications (in content/format) and extensions as to adequate them to a journal publication.

All papers accepted for publication, including those submitted for Virtual Participation, will have the same reviewing processes, will be included in the same proceedings and if they are among the best 25%-30% of the (face-to-face and virtually) presented papers will be candidate for their publication in the Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, with no additional cost for their authors.