These proceedings are from the International Conference on Intelligent Systems, Engineering and Computing (ICISEC 2026) , which was organized by Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology (MJCET), Hyderabad.
Editorial decision making and oversight of peer review was conducted by the Conference Organizing Committee and Technical Program Committee of ICISEC 2026, comprising faculty members and academic experts affiliated with Muffakham Jah College of Engineering and Technology. Peer review was conducted by a pool of peer reviewers from which experts were selected to evaluate each submitted article based on their subject expertise. Taylor and Francis played no part in the choice of editors or peer reviewers for these proceedings.

Step 1: Manuscript Submission & Ethical Clearance
The process begins when authors upload their full research papers or proposals via the official conference management portal. At this stage, authors must ensure their work is strictly formatted according to the conference template. A critical sub-step here is the originality check, where submissions are often accompanied by a plagiarism report to certify that the work is unpublished and unique.

Step 2: Preliminary Editorial Screening
Before reaching a specialist, the organizing team performs a "desk check." They evaluate the paper for Scope and Relevance (e.g., does it actually focus on Intelligent Systems or Electronics?) and Technical Compliance. Papers that are off-topic, poorly formatted, or show high levels of similarity to existing work are "Desk Rejected" to maintain the efficiency of the review pool.

Step 3: Double-Blind Reviewer Assignment
To ensure an unbiased evaluation, ICISEC2027 utilizes a double-blind system. The editorial committee masks the authors' identities and assigns the paper to at least two (and sometimes three) subject matter experts based on the paper's specific domain, such as VLSI, IoT, or Deep Learning.

Step 4: Technical Evaluation
Reviewers conduct a rigorous assessment based on six core pillars:
Novelty: Does it provide a new contribution to the field?
Validity: Are the mathematical models or experimental setups scientifically sound?
Reproducibility: Is there enough detail for another researcher to replicate the results?
Clarity: Is the technical English and logical flow coherent?
Data Integrity: Are the charts, tables, and statistics accurate?
Ethical Adherence: Are all sources cited correctly?

Step 5: Recommendation & Constructive Feedback
Reviewers submit a formal report to the Program Committee with one of the following recommendations:
Accept: Ready for publication.
Minor Revisions: Needs small clarifications or formatting fixes.
Major Revisions: Requires significant rework of data or methodology.
Reject: The work does not meet the technical or originality standards.

Step 6: Author Revisions
Authors of papers marked for "Revisions" receive the anonymized feedback. They must meticulously address every reviewer comment, often providing a "Response to Reviewers" document alongside their updated manuscript to explain how they improved the work.

Step 7: Final Decision by the Program Committee
The Program Committee reviews the updated papers and the consistency of reviewer scores. They make the final executive decision on acceptance. Only papers that successfully pass this final hurdle are invited for presentation and included in the conference proceedings.

Step 8: Transparency and Archiving
Once accepted, the final "Camera-Ready" version is collected. To maintain transparency, authors are provided with the rationale behind their decision, ensuring the process remains an educational and growth-oriented experience for the research community.