Peer Review Policy

Purpose: The purpose of peer review at the International Journal of Computational Intelligence in Digital Systems is to ensure the quality, relevance, and integrity of the research published. Our policy aims to provide a thorough, fair, and unbiased assessment of manuscripts by engaging experts from relevant fields.

1. Type of Peer Review:

  • The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, where both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous to each other throughout the review period. This method helps to eliminate bias and focuses the review solely on the quality of the manuscript.

2. Reviewer Selection:

  • Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject area. The Editorial Board maintains a pool of potential reviewers, including academicians and practitioners, who are recognized experts in their fields.
  • Conflicts of interest are carefully managed to ensure unbiased reviews. Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts with the submitted manuscripts.

3. Review Process:

  • Upon submission, the manuscript is preliminarily assessed by the Editorial Board for its conformity with the journal's scope and basic submission standards.
  • Manuscripts that meet initial criteria are assigned to at least two independent reviewers. The review process evaluates the manuscript's originality, methodology, importance to research, and clarity of presentation.
  • Reviewers are asked to provide detailed comments and an overall recommendation for the manuscript’s disposition: accept, revise, or reject.

4. Duration of Review:

  • The review process typically takes between 6 to 8 weeks, but this can vary depending on the availability of reviewers and the level of revisions required.

5. Decision Process:

  • Decisions are based on the reviewers' recommendations and are made collectively by the Editorial Board. The decision, along with reviewer comments, is communicated to the authors.
  • In cases of conflicting recommendations or appeals by authors, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer or discussed further at an Editorial Board meeting.

6. Appeals:

  • Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions. Appeals must be based on substantive disagreement with the reviewers' evaluations and should provide detailed justification. The Editorial Board will consider the appeal and the decision will be communicated to the authors.

7. Ethics and Confidentiality:

  • All parties involved in the peer review process must adhere to the principles of confidentiality, ethical behavior, and respect for the authors’ work. Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use the information obtained during the review process for personal advantage.
  • Allegations of misconduct, both before and after publication, are taken seriously and investigated in accordance with COPE guidelines.

8. Feedback to Reviewers:

  • Feedback is provided to reviewers on the impact of their reviews, and guidance is offered to new reviewers to maintain high standards of peer review.

9. Continuous Improvement:

  • The peer review process is regularly assessed to make improvements and to adapt to the evolving standards of scientific publishing.