Article Management System Article Management System
Rule Book & policies
The standards we publish to, and the practical guides for meeting them. The two reference documents below are the authoritative versions — read them here or download the PDF.
Rule Book
Technology Fist Publishing Rule Book
Handbook
Technology Fist Conference Organizer Handbook
Agreements & policies
License Agreement
Author Agreement
Privacy Policy
Delivery Policy
Refund Policy
Scope Guidance
Review Policy Guidance
Editorial Policy Guidance
FAQ
Review Policy
Last updated 04 Aug 2026
Every conference and journal hosted on Article Management System operates its own peer review process and publishes its own Review Policy on its own website. This platform-wide guidance describes the baseline Technology Fist expects of that process, rather than replacing it.
- All venues are expected to have accepted papers reviewed by at least one qualified reviewer before a decision is made, except where a venue explicitly and transparently discloses a different process (e.g. an editor-reviewed-only journal) on its own Review Policy page.
- Reviewers are expected to declare any conflict of interest before accepting an assignment, and venues are responsible for managing conflicts appropriately.
- Final acceptance/rejection decisions rest with each venue's own chairs/editors - Technology Fist does not review, override, or participate in individual editorial decisions.
- Where a venue requests revisions, the platform distinguishes minor from major: a MAJOR revision goes back to the original reviewers, who see the revised manuscript and the authors' point-by-point response and are asked to update their reviews; a MINOR revision may be checked by the chair/editor directly. Venues are expected to apply this distinction honestly.
- Authors and reviewers should always check the specific conference/journal's own Review Policy page for its actual process, timelines, and criteria, rather than relying on this general guidance alone.