Reviewer Ethics

Reviewer Ethics

The Journal of Intelligent Computing and Connected Systems (JICCS) expects all reviewers to follow high standards of academic integrity, confidentiality, fairness, and professional conduct. Ethical peer review is essential to maintaining the credibility and quality of scholarly publishing.

1. Integrity and Objectivity

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.

Reviewers must:

  • Base their evaluation on the scholarly and technical content of the manuscript.
  • Avoid personal, professional, or ideological bias.
  • Provide evidence-based and constructive comments.
  • Treat all authors fairly and respectfully.
  • Avoid making judgments based on an author's nationality, institution, gender, background, or other personal characteristics.

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for peer review are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscript content with unauthorized individuals.
  • Discuss the manuscript outside the review process.
  • Copy or distribute unpublished material.
  • Use unpublished ideas or information for their own research or professional benefit.

Confidentiality must be maintained during and after the review process.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality.

Conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with an author.
  • Close personal or professional relationships.
  • Financial interests.
  • Direct research competition.
  • Commercial interests related to the manuscript.
  • Other circumstances that could reasonably affect independent judgment.

If a significant conflict exists, the reviewer should notify the editorial team and decline the review when appropriate.

4. Fair and Constructive Evaluation

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Clear.
  • Specific.
  • Professional.
  • Constructive.
  • Relevant to the manuscript.

Reviewers should explain significant concerns and, where appropriate, provide suggestions that can help authors improve their work.

Personal criticism, insulting language, or discriminatory comments are not appropriate.

5. Academic Integrity

Reviewers should be alert to potential academic and publication-ethics concerns, including:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Fabrication or falsification of data.
  • Inappropriate image manipulation.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Significant ethical concerns.
  • Misrepresentation of previous research.

Suspected concerns should be reported confidentially to the editorial team rather than communicated directly to the authors as an accusation.

6. Appropriate Use of References

Reviewers may recommend relevant references when they genuinely improve the manuscript.

Reviewers should not request unnecessary citations merely to increase their own citations, promote particular publications, or influence citation metrics.

7. Respect for Author Contributions

Reviewers should recognize that manuscripts represent the work of the authors and should not use unpublished ideas, methods, findings, or approaches for their own benefit.

Suggestions for improvement should not require authors to adopt a particular research approach unless there is a clear scholarly justification.

8. Ethical Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Reviewers should protect the confidentiality of manuscripts when using AI-assisted tools.

Confidential manuscript text, data, figures, reviewer comments, or other unpublished material should not be uploaded to external AI systems unless such use is explicitly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are available.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their reviews.

9. Timely Review

Reviewers should respect the review timeline provided by the journal.

If they are unable to complete a review within the required period, they should:

  • Inform the editorial team promptly.
  • Request additional time where appropriate.
  • Decline the assignment if they cannot reasonably complete it.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewer recommendations should accurately reflect the reviewer's assessment of the manuscript.

Recommendations should be supported by the comments provided to the editorial team and should not be influenced by personal interests.

The final decision regarding publication remains with the editorial team.

11. Communication with Authors

Reviewers should not contact authors directly regarding a manuscript under review unless authorized by the editorial team.

All communication related to the review should normally take place through the journal's designated editorial system.

12. Reporting Ethical Concerns

If a reviewer identifies a serious ethical or publication concern, the reviewer should confidentially inform the editorial team and provide sufficient information to explain the concern.

The reviewer should allow the editorial team to investigate the matter according to the journal's applicable policies.

13. Professional Conduct

All participants in peer review are expected to maintain professional conduct.

Reviewers should demonstrate:

  • Honesty
  • Fairness
  • Confidentiality
  • Independence
  • Respect
  • Accountability
  • Academic integrity

Reviewer Ethics Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers should confirm:

☐ I have evaluated the manuscript objectively.
☐ I have maintained confidentiality.
☐ I have disclosed any potential conflict of interest.
☐ My comments are professional and constructive.
☐ I have not used unpublished information for personal benefit.
☐ I have not requested unnecessary citations.
☐ I have considered relevant ethical concerns.
☐ I have protected confidential information when using digital or AI-assisted tools.
☐ My recommendation is supported by my evaluation.
☐ I have followed the journal's review procedures.

Commitment to Ethical Peer Review

JICCS is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, confidential, and ethically responsible peer-review process. Reviewers contribute significantly to maintaining the quality and integrity of the scholarly record.