Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Computational Management and Engineering Systems (IJAICMES) follows a rigorous, transparent, and fair Double-Blind Peer Review Process to ensure the quality, originality, and academic integrity of all published research articles.

The journal is committed to maintaining high scholarly standards by evaluating submitted manuscripts through qualified experts in the relevant research domain.

1. Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to IJAICMES undergo the following systematic peer-review process:

Step 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, the editorial team performs a preliminary assessment of the manuscript to verify:

· Relevance to the journal’s scope and aims

· Originality and plagiarism check

· Quality of writing and language clarity

· Formatting and structural compliance

· Ethical standards and research integrity

· Completeness of references and citations

Manuscripts failing to meet the journal’s basic requirements may be:

· Desk rejected

· Returned to authors for technical corrections before review

The journal generally permits a plagiarism similarity index within acceptable academic limits as per journal policy.

Step 2: Assignment to Expert Reviewers

After successful editorial screening, the Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to two or more independent subject experts for evaluation under the Double-Blind Peer Review System, where:

· Authors do not know the identities of reviewers

· Reviewers do not know the identities of authors

Reviewers are selected based on:

· Subject expertise

· Research publications

· Academic and professional experience

· Previous reviewing contributions

Step 3: Review and Evaluation

Reviewers critically evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

✔ Originality and novelty of the research
✔ Significance and contribution to the field
✔ Research methodology and technical quality
✔ Accuracy of analysis and interpretation
✔ Quality of literature review and references
✔ Clarity of presentation and organization
✔ Ethical compliance and academic integrity
✔ Relevance to multidisciplinary and emerging research areas

Reviewers provide:

· Detailed comments

· Suggestions for improvement

· Editorial recommendations

Step 4: Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, the editorial board may take one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication with minor or no revisions.

Minor Revision

Authors are requested to address small corrections or clarifications.

Major Revision

Substantial improvements or modifications are required before reconsideration.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal’s quality standards, originality requirements, or scope.

The average peer-review and editorial decision process generally takes 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability and revision cycles.

Step 5: Revision and Final Acceptance

Authors receiving revision requests must:

· Revise the manuscript carefully

· Address all reviewer comments point-by-point

· Resubmit the revised version within the specified timeline

The revised manuscript may:

· Be evaluated directly by the editorial board

· Be sent back to reviewers for re-evaluation if necessary

Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes:

· Final editing

· Formatting

· Proofreading

· DOI assignment and publication processing

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewers are expected to:

✔ Provide objective, constructive, and unbiased feedback
✔ Maintain strict confidentiality of manuscripts
✔ Identify plagiarism, ethical concerns, or conflicts of interest
✔ Suggest improvements in research quality and clarity
✔ Complete reviews within the assigned timeline

Reviewers must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal or professional benefit.

3. Editorial Responsibilities

The editorial board and editors are responsible for:

· Ensuring fair and unbiased manuscript evaluation

· Maintaining confidentiality throughout the review process

· Selecting qualified reviewers

· Preventing conflicts of interest

· Upholding publication ethics and academic standards

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and the editorial board.

 

4. Ethical Considerations in Peer Review

IJAICMES strictly follows ethical publishing practices.

Confidentiality

Editors and reviewers must not disclose manuscript information to unauthorized individuals.

Plagiarism and Research Misconduct

Manuscripts containing plagiarism, fabricated data, falsification, or unethical research practices are rejected immediately.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any personal, academic, or financial conflicts of interest before participating in the review process.

 

5. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who disagree with editorial decisions may submit a formal appeal with proper justification and supporting information.

The editorial board reviews all appeals carefully, and the final decision of the Editor-in-Chief shall be considered binding.

 

6. Transparency and Continuous Improvement

IJAICMES continuously evaluates and improves its peer-review policies to maintain transparency, efficiency, and academic excellence.

Feedback from authors, reviewers, and readers is welcomed to strengthen the journal’s editorial and review practices.