Scientific Criteria for Evaluating Research Papers

 

• Criteria of Originality and Knowledge Contribution

• This is the first "filter" criterion. It does not only look for information aggregation, but for:

  1. Research Gap: Has the researcher identified a real problem that has not been solved before?
  2. Added Value: What will the scientific community gain from this paper? Does it provide a new solution, or a development of an existing methodology, or a test of a theory in a new context?
  3. Innovation: Is there a creative touch in the approach or is it just redundancy?

• Methodological Rigor

• Here we test the scientific content of the research:

  1. Research Design: Is the chosen methodology (descriptive, experimental, analytical) the most suitable to answer the research questions?
  2. Study Tools: Have the tools (questionnaire, interview, software simulation) been validated for reliability and validity?
  3. Data Analysis: Did the researcher use the correct statistical or analytical methods? Are the conclusions actually derived from the results (Evidence-based) or are they just personal opinions?

• Objective and Structural Criteria

• Concerned with how to build the structure of the scientific paper:

  1. Quality of the Abstract: Does it summarize the "problem, methodology, and main results" in a focused paragraph?
  2. Logical Coherence: The researcher’s transition from the introduction to the results should be like a connected chain, with no gaps in reasoning.

• Precise Acceptance and Rejection Criteria
  

  1. Reasons for Acceptance

     1. The paper's complete alignment with the "Conference Scope."
     2. Recency of References (at least 70% within the last 5 years).
     3. Clarity of scientific language and absence of grammatical and typographical errors.

  2. Reasons for Absolute Rejection

     1. Plagiarism: If the citation rate exceeds a certain limit (usually 15-20%), the paper is immediately rejected.
     2. Scientific dishonesty: falsifying results or failing to cite original sources.
     3. Severe language weakness: if the language hinders understanding of the scientific content.
     4. Consumed topic: addressing an issue that has been over-researched without providing a new angle.

• Technical and artistic standards
  

  1. Adherence to the template: failure to comply with the conference format (margins, font type, paper size) gives an impression of unprofessionalism and may lead to technical rejection.
  2. Quality of tables and figures: graphs should be clear, numbered, and have accurately descriptive titles.
  3. In international conferences, the goal is to seek "credibility," which is respected by reviewers more than research that claims to solve all problems.