Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Advanced Computing Systems (JACS) is dedicated to upholding the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific excellence. Our peer review process is rigorous, transparent, and designed to ensure that all published research meets the journal's quality and ethical standards.

  1. Overview of the Peer Review Process

Double-Blind Review

  • Confidentiality: JACS employs a double-blind review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other. This minimizes bias and promotes fair evaluation.
  • Objectivity: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and are tasked with impartial assessment, focusing solely on the manuscript's quality and relevance.
  1. Submission and Initial Screening

Manuscript Submission

  • Online Submission System: Authors submit manuscripts through our online platform, where the editorial team conducts an initial screening.
  • Initial Assessment: The editorial team reviews manuscripts for adherence to journal guidelines, relevance to the journal’s scope, and basic quality standards.

Editorial Decision

  • Desk Rejection: Manuscripts that do not align with the journal’s scope or fail to meet quality criteria may be rejected without peer review. Authors will receive detailed feedback explaining the decision.
  1. Reviewer Selection

Expert Reviewers

  • Selection Criteria: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area. Care is taken to avoid conflicts of interest.
  • Invitation: Selected reviewers are invited to assess the manuscript and provided with detailed instructions and requirements.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript’s content and refrain from using it for personal gain.
  • Timeliness: Reviews should be completed within the specified time frame. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.
  1. Review Process

Review Criteria

  • Relevance: Assess whether the research aligns with the journal’s scope and contributes to the field.
  • Originality: Evaluate the novelty of the work and its distinction from existing literature.
  • Methodology: Examine the rigor and appropriateness of the research methods and techniques used.
  • Results and Interpretation: Review the validity, clarity, and significance of the results and their interpretation.
  • Writing Quality: Evaluate the manuscript’s clarity, organization, and overall writing quality.

Review Feedback

  • Constructive Feedback: Reviewers provide actionable, specific, and objective feedback to help authors improve their work.
  • Recommendations: Reviewers recommend acceptance, minor or major revisions, or rejection based on their evaluations.
  1. Decision Making

Editorial Review

  • Decision Making: The editor makes a decision based on reviewers’ feedback, choosing among acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection.
  • Communication: Authors receive a decision letter with detailed review comments and recommendations. Revisions must address all feedback comprehensively.

Revised Manuscripts

  • Reevaluation: Revised manuscripts are often sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation. Additional review rounds may be required.
  1. Appeals and Resubmissions

Appeals

  • Appeal Process: Authors may appeal decisions if they believe a procedural error or oversight occurred. Appeals must include a detailed explanation and supporting evidence.
  • Reevaluation: The editorial board reviews appeals, and decisions may be reconsidered or upheld.

Resubmissions

  • Response to Reviewers: Authors resubmitting revised manuscripts must include a detailed response addressing reviewers' comments. The revised submission undergoes reevaluation to ensure feedback is adequately addressed.
  1. Ethical Considerations

Conflict of Interest

  • Disclosure: Reviewers and editors are required to disclose any conflicts of interest. Manuscripts with potential conflicts are handled with additional scrutiny.
  • Transparency: The peer review process is conducted transparently to uphold the integrity of the journal.

Misconduct

  • Plagiarism: Any suspicion of plagiarism or ethical misconduct is thoroughly investigated. Authors may be asked to provide additional evidence of originality and ethical compliance.
  • Corrections and Retractions: In cases of post-publication misconduct, appropriate actions, such as corrections or retractions, will be taken.

This peer review policy reflects our commitment to publishing high-quality research that advances the field of advanced computing systems.