Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

The Journal of Intelligent Computing and Connected Systems (JICCS) appreciates the contribution of reviewers who help maintain the quality, integrity, and scholarly standards of the journal.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluations of submitted manuscripts while maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer-review process helps the journal:

  • Assess the quality and originality of submitted manuscripts.
  • Evaluate the scientific and technical contribution of the work.
  • Identify strengths and weaknesses in the manuscript.
  • Provide constructive feedback to authors.
  • Support editorial decisions regarding publication.

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts objectively and independently.
  • Provide constructive and professional comments.
  • Assess the scientific and technical quality of the work.
  • Identify significant errors or inconsistencies.
  • Evaluate whether the conclusions are supported by the results.
  • Submit their review within the agreed timeframe.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

3. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers should not:

  • Share the manuscript with others without authorization.
  • Discuss the manuscript or its contents with individuals outside the review process.
  • Use unpublished information from the manuscript for personal or professional advantage.
  • Distribute or reproduce manuscript content without permission.

4. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews should be based on the scientific and technical content of the manuscript.

Reviewers should avoid comments or judgments based on:

  • Author identity.
  • Institution or affiliation.
  • Nationality.
  • Gender.
  • Personal beliefs.
  • Professional relationships.

Comments should be clear, respectful, and supported by reasonable academic or technical justification.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A conflict may exist when a reviewer has:

  • A personal or professional relationship with an author.
  • A direct research collaboration with an author.
  • A financial or commercial interest related to the manuscript.
  • A competitive or other relationship that could affect impartiality.

If a significant conflict of interest exists, the reviewer should decline the assignment and inform the editorial team.

6. Assessment of the Manuscript

Reviewers are encouraged to consider the following aspects:

Originality

Does the manuscript provide original findings, methods, ideas, or applications?

Technical Quality

Are the methodology, experiments, analysis, and technical details appropriate and sufficiently explained?

Significance

Does the work make a meaningful contribution to intelligent computing or connected systems?

Clarity

Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?

Results

Are the results adequately presented, analyzed, and supported?

References

Are relevant and appropriate scholarly references included?

Conclusions

Are the conclusions supported by the research findings?

7. Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should help authors improve their manuscript.

Reviewers should:

  • Clearly explain major concerns.
  • Identify specific sections that require improvement.
  • Distinguish major issues from minor corrections.
  • Provide appropriate academic or technical reasoning.
  • Avoid offensive, dismissive, or personal comments.

8. Recommendation to the Editor

After completing the evaluation, reviewers may provide a recommendation to the editor according to the options available in the journal's review system.

Possible recommendations may include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final publication decision is made by the editorial team, taking into account reviewer comments and the journal's editorial policies.

9. Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should immediately inform the editorial team if they identify concerns such as:

  • Possible plagiarism.
  • Duplicate or simultaneous publication.
  • Significant data inconsistencies.
  • Ethical concerns.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Suspected manipulation or inappropriate use of research data.

Reviewers should not independently investigate or contact the authors about such concerns unless instructed by the editorial team.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers should complete their evaluations within the timeframe provided by the journal.

If additional time is required, reviewers should contact the editorial team as soon as possible.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review, they should decline the assignment promptly so that the editorial process is not unnecessarily delayed.

11. Use of AI-Assisted Tools

Reviewers should exercise caution when using generative AI or other AI-assisted tools during peer review.

Confidential manuscript content should not be uploaded to external AI systems or services unless explicitly permitted by the journal and appropriate confidentiality safeguards are in place.

Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and confidentiality of their evaluations.

12. Reviewer Recognition

JICCS values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining the quality of scholarly publishing. Where applicable, the journal may provide appropriate recognition of completed peer-review contributions in accordance with its policies.

13. Final Reviewer Checklist

Before submitting a review, reviewers should confirm that:

☐ The manuscript has been evaluated objectively.
☐ The review is constructive and professional.
☐ Major scientific or technical concerns have been clearly explained.
☐ Minor corrections have been identified where appropriate.
☐ Potential conflicts of interest have been disclosed.
☐ Confidentiality has been maintained.
☐ The review does not contain personal or offensive comments.
☐ The recommendation is supported by the review comments.

Thank You to Our Reviewers

JICCS sincerely appreciates the time, expertise, and professional contribution of reviewers who support the journal's peer-review process and help maintain the quality and integrity of published research.