Review Process

USG United Scientific Group and the organizing committee members of Nano-2026 ensure a rigorous, high-quality, and unbiased peer-review process for all abstracts submitted to the conference. The decision of abstract acceptance will be judged by a panel of expert reviewers and/or session chair and/or conference chairman, emphasizing whether the findings and/or conclusions are novel and make useful contributions to the field.

The committee will determine whether the abstract is more appropriate for oral or poster presentation. Eligibility for oral or poster presentation will be determined by the total score (with adjustment for differential scoring behavior between referees).

The committee operates a single/double-blind peer review process for all abstracts submitted, where both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous.

• All submitted abstracts are reviewed by the internal editorial team to ensure adherence to the conference scope and those passing this screening are then assigned to the session chair/review committee for evaluation.
• The session chair/review committee decides whether reviews from appropriate independent experts/reviewers are needed to evaluate the abstract. External reviewer(s) evaluate most submissions, but the number of reviews required is decided by the committee.
• Once reviews are received, the committee decides to accept, reject, or request revisions. For minor or major revisions, authors have 14 days to resubmit the revised abstract.

Abstracts submitted by invited and/or keynote speakers will be reviewed by the conference chairman.

The abstract should be reviewed according to the following criteria:

• Originality of concept/approach and level of innovativeness
• Significance/impact/relevance to conference theme
• Quality of research design/theoretical argument
• Conclusions and interpretations of results
• Presentation style: coherence and clarity of structure