Peer Review Process
Peer Review Process
A structured and transparent review process supporting originality, methodological rigor, research integrity, and scholarly contributions in computer science, artificial intelligence, and communications.
Double-Blind Peer Review
The Journal of Computer Science Artificial Intelligence and Communications (JOCSAIC) uses a double-blind peer-review model, in which authors and reviewers are not informed of each other's identities through the review process. Authors should remove identifying information from the review manuscript and follow the journal's submission instructions. Anonymity cannot be guaranteed where the content of a manuscript reveals an author's identity.
The estimated period covers editorial screening, reviewer evaluation, editorial decisions, and revision stages as applicable. The actual duration may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript quality, revision requirements, and the time taken by authors to respond.
Eight Stages of Peer Review
Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts through the OJS submission system and provide the required files, author information, and declarations.
Initial Editorial Screening
The editor assesses the journal scope, completeness, formatting, basic scientific quality, and compliance with author guidelines.
Similarity and Integrity Check
The manuscript may be screened for text similarity, plagiarism, redundant publication, and other research-integrity concerns.
Reviewer Selection
Suitable manuscripts are assigned to qualified, independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise and no disqualifying conflicts of interest.
Double-Blind Review
JOCSAIC aims to obtain assessments from at least two independent reviewers, subject to reviewer availability and the journal's editorial procedures.
Editorial Decision
The editor considers the review reports and manuscript quality before deciding whether to accept, request revisions, or reject the submission.
Revision and Re-evaluation
Authors respond to reviewer comments and submit revisions. Further review may be conducted when needed.
Final Acceptance and Publication
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofreading, metadata verification, DOI processing where applicable, and publication.
Review Evaluation Criteria
Novelty, relevance, and contribution to existing knowledge.
Appropriateness, rigor, and reproducibility of research methods.
Validity of findings and interpretation supported by evidence.
Reference quality, clarity, organization, figures, and tables.
Editorial Decisions
The manuscript is accepted for publication, subject to any required final preparation.
Limited revisions are required before a final decision can be made.
Substantial changes are required. Further reviewer evaluation may be necessary.
The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication requirements.
Author Responsibilities
- Submit original work that is not simultaneously under consideration by another journal.
- Provide accurate research information, references, authorship details, and required ethical disclosures.
- Respond to reviewer comments professionally and explain any recommendations not adopted.
- Disclose relevant funding and conflicts of interest, and ensure all authors approve the submitted manuscript.
Reviewer Responsibilities
- Evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, and within their area of expertise.
- Maintain confidentiality and do not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
- Declare conflicts of interest and decline assignments where impartiality may be compromised.
- Provide constructive, evidence-based comments and alert the editor to suspected ethical concerns.
Confidentiality, Ethics, and Conflicts of Interest
Manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential editorial materials. Editors and reviewers must protect unpublished information, declare relevant conflicts of interest, and avoid decisions influenced by personal, institutional, or commercial considerations. Suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other research-integrity concerns will be assessed under the journal's publication ethics procedures.
Appeals and Editorial Decisions
Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision should provide a reasoned explanation addressing the decision and relevant reviewer comments. Appeals are assessed by the editorial team on academic and procedural grounds. An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.
Important Note on Processing Time
The estimated overall editorial process is 8–14 weeks. This is an estimated timeframe, not a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a fixed period. Delays may occur due to reviewer availability, additional review rounds, required revisions, or late author responses. The editorial office may provide updates through the OJS system when appropriate.
Integrity, Transparency, and Scholarly Excellence
Peer review supports the quality and credibility of scholarly communication. Completion of peer review does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
