Abstract review process

Abstracts will be reviewed by a least two (2) designated Scientific Committee reviewers. The reviewers will not have access to submitting author or co-authors’ details and will therefore not know the origins of the abstract to promote impartiality.

Authors will receive notification via e-mail regarding acceptance of abstracts.

Deadline for submission of full papers will be communicated to all authors and updated on the website.

Authors should be aware that accepted papers and posters may be organized in various ways during the joint conference, such as oral presentation or poster presentation.

Abstract review criteria

The review criteria for abstracts are as follows:

  • Suitability for the topic. Does the abstract fit into the topic? Abstracts with inappropriate contents or commercial advertisements will be rejected.
  • Quality of research goals. Appropriately chosen and documented methods, logical presentation and analysis of results, findings, inferences and conclusions. Novelty and significance of the work, and implications for practices, policies or further research.
  • Only those abstracts that document significant results will be considered for oral presentations, in order to avoid a situation in which the "promises of the abstracts" cannot be fulfilled.
  • Standard of writing, clear and logical presentation, appropriate style, lack of errors, ease of reading, correct grammar and spelling, conformance with specifications for length and format details.

Reviewers will receive the following specific criteria on which to assess if the submitted abstract may be accepted or not:

  1. Does the abstract contain inappropriate content or commercial advertisements?  If so, they must be rejected.
  2. Does the abstract fit into the theme selected by the author or would you recommend placing the abstract into a different theme? If you recommend for the abstract to be re-assigned to a different theme.
  3. Are the following points adequately addressed in the abstract:

Methods: Are the methods appropriate and are they documented properly? If not, consider rejecting the abstract.

Content: (a) Is the work novel and significant, and does it offer implications for best practices, policies or further research? (b) Is the overall presentation and analysis of results, findings, references, and conclusions, logical? If (a) OR (b) shows severe shortcomings, consider rejecting the abstract.

Style: (a) Is the writing clear and logical, and of an appropriate style? (b) Does the style offer ease of reading with correct grammar and spelling? (c) Does the abstract conform with the stated requirements for length and format? If (a) AND (b) show severe shortcomings, consider rejecting the abstract. If (c) is not met, make a note to the Theme Chairs.

  1. For accepted abstracts, please decide whether the work submitted by the authors should be presented as an oral or poster presentation.
  2. Do you propose this paper to be considered for publication in the ISES Solar Energy Advances Journal (SEA)?


Interested in becoming a reviewer for SWC 2023? Please send us an email (swc@ises.org). We are always looking for enthusiastic and expert reviewers who are experts in the specified themes to join the reviewers team.