Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Technology and Computer Sciences (JATICS) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, research integrity, transparency, and ethical scholarly communication. The journal follows a rigorous, objective, and impartial peer-review process to ensure that published manuscripts demonstrate originality, technical quality, methodological rigor, scientific significance, and relevance to artificial intelligence, computer science, information technology, engineering, and emerging technological fields.

Double-Blind Peer Review

JATICS follows a double-blind peer-review system. Under this model, the identities of authors are concealed from reviewers, and reviewers' identities remain confidential to authors throughout the review process.

This system is intended to promote fair, objective, and unbiased evaluation of submitted manuscripts.

Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment before being sent for external peer review.

The editorial screening may consider:

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of JATICS
  • Compliance with author guidelines
  • Originality and contribution
  • Technical and scientific quality
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Methodological soundness
  • Ethical compliance
  • Similarity and plagiarism concerns

Manuscripts may also be screened using recognized plagiarism-detection software.

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial assessment are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are selected based on their:

  • Academic qualifications
  • Research expertise
  • Relevant publication record
  • Technical knowledge
  • Professional experience
  • Independence from the authors

Potential conflicts of interest are considered before reviewer assignment.

Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers may evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and innovation
  • Scientific and technological significance
  • Technical accuracy
  • Methodological rigor
  • Quality of data analysis
  • Validity of results and conclusions
  • Relevance and quality of literature review
  • Clarity and organization
  • Practical and theoretical contribution
  • Quality and accuracy of references
  • Ethical compliance
  • Relevance to the scope of JATICS

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions
  • Reject

Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief, taking into consideration the reviewers' comments, recommendations, manuscript quality, and compliance with journal policies.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

Review Timeline

The standard review period is generally four to eight weeks, depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and author responsiveness.

Actual processing times may vary.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain strict confidentiality.
  • Provide objective, fair, and constructive comments.
  • Evaluate manuscripts independently.
  • Disclose potential conflicts of interest.
  • Avoid personal criticism.
  • Avoid discriminatory or offensive comments.
  • Identify relevant published work that has not been cited where appropriate.
  • Notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated data, or other ethical concerns.
  • Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal research or professional advantage.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from an error, misunderstanding, procedural issue, or unfair evaluation may submit a formal appeal to the editorial office.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editorial Board and may, where appropriate, involve an independent reviewer or additional academic expert.

Ethical Standards

JATICS follows internationally recognized principles of publication ethics and supports the guidelines and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, citation manipulation, authorship misconduct, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and unethical research practices are prohibited.

Reviewer Recognition

With reviewers' consent, JATICS may acknowledge reviewers through annual reviewer-recognition activities. The journal may also provide electronic certificates of appreciation.

Outstanding reviewers may be considered for appropriate recognition or future editorial and advisory opportunities.

Conclusion

Peer review is a fundamental component of quality assurance at the Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Technology and Computer Sciences (JATICS). Through a rigorous, double-blind, fair, and ethical peer-review process, the journal seeks to publish original, reliable, technically sound, and impactful research.