Article Reviewer Policy

1. Scope and Purpose

The purpose of this policy is to define the standards and procedures for peer review of manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Deep Intelligence and Computing (JDIC). The policy ensures fair, rigorous, ethical, and timely evaluation of research and aligns with best practices found in Scopus-indexed journals and IEEE-level review standards. (publicationethics.org)

2. Reviewers Selection

Reviewer will be selected based on:

  • Expertise in relevant subject domains, including but not limited to:

    • Deep learning, artificial intelligence, and machine learning

    • High-performance and distributed computing

    • Intelligent systems and autonomous technologies

    • Data science, big data analytics, and knowledge discovery

    • Cyber-physical, IoT, computational intelligence, and robotics

  • Demonstrated academic credentials or professional experience

  • No conflicts of interest

  • Where practicable, multiple reviewers are assigned to each manuscript to ensure breadth and depth of evaluation. (Zenodo)

3. Confidentiality

All aspects of the manuscript and review process are strictly confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share, discuss, or disclose the content of the manuscript with unauthorized persons.

  • Use knowledge gained through the peer-review process for personal advantage before publication.

  • Retain copies of the manuscript or data after review completion. (publicationethics.org)

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must:

  • Disclose any potential conflicts of interest — professional, financial, or personal — that may bias judgment.

  • Decline review invitations where a conflict could compromise impartial evaluation.

  • Refrain from reviewing submissions authored by collaborators, students, or close colleagues.

If any doubt exists, reviewers should consult the editorial office before proceeding.

5. Peer Review Standards and Format

5.1 Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submissions based on:

  1. Originality and Contribution: Novelty relative to existing literature, including theoretical or practical advancement.

  2. Methodological Rigor: Appropriateness, clarity, and robustness of research design, data collection, and analysis.

  3. Presentation and Organization: Logical structure, clarity of writing, and adherence to submission guidelines.

  4. Technical Soundness: Accuracy of results, validity of conclusions, and reproducibility.

  5. Ethics and Integrity: Proper citation, absence of plagiarism, responsible use of AI tools (including disclosure), and ethical research practices.

  6. Relevance and Impact: Potential to influence research, technology practice, or professional standards in the field. (publicationethics.org)

5.2 Review Structure

Review reports should contain:

  • Summary of Manuscript: Concise overview of objectives and key contributions.

  • Major Strengths: Each reviewer should highlight notable strengths.

  • Major Weaknesses: Identify critical gaps or methodological concerns.

  • Technical Comments: Specific technical feedback, including suggestions for improvement.

  • Minor Comments: Language, formatting, or citation issues.

  • Recommendation:  Accept with Minor Revisions, Invite Major Revisions, Reject. (publicationethics.org)

6. Timeliness

  • Reviewers commit to delivering reports within a set timeframe (typically 4–6 weeks) after accepting a review invitation. (signalprocessingsociety.org)

  • Requests for extensions should be communicated promptly to the Editorial Office.

7. Double-Blind or Blind Review

  • Where possible, submissions should be reviewed using a double-blind process (both author and reviewer identities concealed) to minimize bias. (Zenodo)

  • If double-blind is not feasible, a single-blind process may be used.

8. Reviewer Conduct and Recognition

  • Provide constructive, respectful, and objective feedback.

  • Focus on the work performed, not the individuals.

  • Avoid ad hominem, judgmental, or discriminatory comments.

The journal publicly acknowledges reviewers annually and issues certificates of service on request.

9. Editorial Policy — High-Level Principles

JDIC’s Editorial Board commits to:

  • Fair Decision-Making: Editorial decisions based solely on scholarly merit.

  • Ethical Oversight: Prevent plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, and conflicts of interest.

  • Transparency and Integrity: Clear communication about acceptance, rejection, or revision requests.

  • Timeliness: Initial editorial screening within ~2 weeks of submission.

  • Editorial Independence: Decisions independent of commercial or external influence. (www.elsevier.com)

10. Conflict of Interest and Appeals

  • Editors must also disclose conflicts and may recuse themselves.

  • Authors can appeal decisions, providing rationale for reconsideration. Appeals are reviewed by a different editorial member.

  • Ethical complaints are addressed per internationally recognized practices (e.g., COPE guidelines). (publicationethics.org)

11. Post-Publication Corrections

JDIC maintains policies for:

  • Corrections

  • Expressions of concern

  • Retractions, following established ethical standards when significant errors or misconduct are identified. (publicationethics.org)

12. Ethical Compliance

By participating in the review or editorial process, all parties agree to uphold the highest ethical and scholarly standards consistent with Scopus indexing and IEEE publishing expectations — including confidentiality, conflict avoidance, and rigorous, impartial evaluation. (news.europub.co.uk)