Each abstract is read by at least two members of the scientific committee, and the track's industry co-chair reads every abstract in the track. Review is single-blind and rolling, so authors hear back within about ten days. A review takes about fifteen minutes. Authors see the same criteria on the call for papers.
1 is weak, 3 is acceptable, and 5 is excellent. Score research and industry case studies in the same way: a well-reported field result can score as highly as a new model.
What is new compared with the state of the art or current practice?
Do the methods, data or field evidence support the claims?
Is there a clear link to an energy-transition problem in one of the tracks?
Are the problem, approach, result and value stated plainly within the word limits?
The track chairs make the decision. Your recommendation and comments are what they rely on.
Tick "conflict" and do not score if you are an author, work at the same institution or company as an author, have published or worked with an author in the last three years, supervise or were supervised by an author, or have a commercial interest in the result. The abstract is then passed to another reviewer.
Abstracts are unpublished work. Do not share them, use their content in your own work, or upload them to AI tools. Delete any copies after the review.
Please return each review within a week of assignment, so authors hear back quickly. Every reviewer receives a reviewer certificate after the conference and, with their permission, is thanked by name in the programme.
Reviewers work in their account on this site. Tell us your field and we will add you to a track.