Peer Review Policy

Our peer review process is designed to ensure the quality, validity, and significance of submitted research. Independent expert reviewers assess each manuscript’s originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field, and provide constructive feedback to authors. Reviewers’ reports help editors make informed decisions (accept, revise, or reject) on each submission.

Review Process

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Upon submission, the editor-in-chief or an associate editor conducts a preliminary check. This desk review ensures the paper fits the journal’s scope, follows formatting and ethical guidelines, and meets basic quality standards. Manuscripts that fail this screening may be returned to the authors without external review.
  • Reviewer Selection: If the paper passes the initial check, the editor invites two or more qualified reviewers who are specialists in the subject area. Reviewers are selected for their expertise. The journal employs the Double-Blind Review: Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. The manuscript is stripped of identifying information.
  • Reviewer Evaluation: Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript’s originality, scientific soundness, methodology, analysis, and clarity. They also check for ethical issues (e.g. plagiarism, data fabrication) and the relevance of citations. Reviewers then submit a detailed written report with constructive comments and a recommendation (e.g. “accept”, “minor revision”, “major revision”, or “reject”). Reviews should be fair, objective, and professional. As ACM notes, reviewers “carefully read submissions” and provide detailed feedback to decision-makers.
  • Editorial Decision: After receiving all reviews, the editor considers the reviewers’ reports and makes a decision. Possible outcomes include acceptance, revision requests, or rejection. The editor summarizes the decision and sends it to the authors along with the anonymized reviewer comments. Authors are expected to address all substantive points raised by the reviewers in any revision.
  • Revisions and Follow-up: If revisions are requested, authors revise the manuscript and resubmit it by the deadline. The revised paper may be re-sent to the original reviewers or to new reviewers for verification. The editor then evaluates the revised submission (and possibly further reviewer input) before making a final decision.

Timeframe Guidelines: To keep the process efficient, we set target timelines for reviews and revisions. Typically, reviewers are asked to return their reports within 2–4 weeks of acceptance, and authors are given about 4–6 weeks to submit revisions. Reviewers who cannot meet the deadline should notify the editor immediately and may request a short extension. The goal is to reach an initial decision (after one round of review) within ~8–12 weeks of submission.

Reviewer and Editor Responsibilities

  • Expertise and Diligence: Reviewers should accept assignments only if they have the appropriate expertise and can provide a thorough evaluation. They are expected to read the manuscript carefully and assess its merits on scientific grounds. Reviews should be detailed and constructive, pointing out strengths and weaknesses and suggesting improvements.
  • Timeliness: Peer review is time-sensitive. Reviewers must complete evaluations by the agreed deadline. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline (for example, due to workload or ill health), they should notify the editor as soon as possible and may request an extension. Similarly, authors should submit revisions within the allotted time or request more time if needed. Prompt communication keeps the process moving efficiently.
  • Constructive Tone: Feedback should be professional and courteous. Reviewers should avoid personal criticism and focus on the work. The aim is to help authors improve their manuscript, not to obstruct publication without cause.
  • Preventing Bias: Reviewers and editors must remain objective. Decisions should be based solely on the quality and relevance of the work, not on the authors’ identity, affiliation, race, gender, or beliefs. Anonymity in review helps in this regard, but even with open identities, everyone must strive for impartiality.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest. A conflict exists if a personal, financial, or professional relationship could bias one’s judgment. Examples include recent collaboration with an author, shared institutional affiliation, competition in the same research area, or financial stakes in the results. If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment or alert the editor. The editor will then either choose another reviewer or proceed with awareness of the conflict.

Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

High ethical standards are essential for credible peer review. Key principles include:

  • Confidentiality: All details of a manuscript under review are strictly confidential. Reviewers and editors may not share the manuscript, discuss it with colleagues, or use its data for their research before publication. As Wiley notes, maintaining confidentiality is “the first step to trust in peer review”. Reviewers must respect the authors’ anonymity (in blind review) and not attempt to identify them. Notes and comments on the submission are for the editor and author only. Any breach of confidentiality (such as posting unpublished data online) is a serious ethical violation.
  • Integrity and Fairness: Reviews must be honest and unbiased. Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript solely on academic merit, avoiding personal opinions or prejudices. They must not engage in unethical practices like fabricating criticism or undermining valid research. ACM’s policy emphasizes that reviewers should be free of bias “based on nationality, religious or political beliefs, gender or other demographic characteristics”. Reviews should not contain derogatory or discriminatory remarks.
  • No Plagiarism or Data Misuse: Reviewers who detect possible plagiarism, data fabrication, or other misconduct in a manuscript should alert the editor. Editors will then follow standard procedures (often per Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines) to investigate and resolve such issues.
  • Proper Attribution: Reviewers should not misappropriate any ideas or information from the manuscript. Unpublished concepts must remain confidential. If a reviewer later publishes related work, they should ensure it is genuinely independent of the reviewed manuscript.

By upholding these ethical principles (confidentiality, integrity, impartiality), reviewers and editors help maintain trust in the scholarly record.

Timeframes and Communication

To ensure efficient handling, we set target deadlines and communicate clearly:

  • Reviewer Deadlines: Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to return their evaluation (depending on length/complexity). This period can be extended by a short grace period if agreed. Reviewers should confirm they can meet the deadline when accepting the review.
  • Revision Deadlines: Authors usually have about 4–6 weeks to submit revisions after receiving reviewer comments. Shorter or longer revision periods may be set by the editor based on the extent of changes required.
  • Editor Turnaround: The editor aims to make a first decision (after peer review) within roughly 8–12 weeks of the initial submission. After resubmission of revisions, a final decision is typically communicated within a few weeks. These targets may vary by field; journals often report median times on their websites.
  • Notifications: All parties should communicate promptly. For example, if a reviewer identifies a serious problem (scope mismatch, ethical concern, etc.) they should inform the editor immediately. Authors should promptly acknowledge decision letters and adhere to given timelines. If any party (editor, reviewer, or author) cannot meet a deadline, they should notify the journal as early as possible.

Adhering to these timelines helps authors receive feedback and editorial decisions without undue delay, which is considered best practice in scholarly publishing.

Appeals and Corrections

If authors disagree with an editorial decision, they may submit an appeal or letter to the editor explaining their objections. The editor will review the appeal, possibly consulting the reviewers again. Any requested corrections or clarifications after publication should be addressed via errata or corrigenda as per journal policy.