Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Process — Journal of Deep Intelligence and Computing (JDIC)

The Journal of Deep Intelligence and Computing (JDIC) uses a rigorous peer-review process supported by the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform, developed by the Public Knowledge Project (PKP) — an open-source journal management and publishing system designed for transparent, high-quality scholarly publishing.

1. Submission and Initial Screening

  1. Submission: Authors submit manuscripts through the OJS submission portal, providing full text, metadata, and any required supplementary files.
  2. Initial Check by Editorial Office: The journal manager or assigned editor reviews the submission to ensure it complies with JDIC’s scope and submission guidelines. Manuscripts may be desk-rejected at this stage if they are out of scope, incomplete, or do not meet basic quality standards.

2. Editor Assignment

Once the initial check is passed:

  • The Section Editor or Handling Editor is assigned to oversee the submission through the review process.
  • The editor evaluates the manuscript’s suitability for peer review and may reject unsuitable submissions at this stage.

3. Reviewer Selection and Invitation

  1. Reviewer Identification: The editor selects one or more qualified peer reviewers with expertise relevant to the manuscript’s topic.
  2. Invitation: Reviewers receive an invitation via OJS and can accept or decline the review request through the system.
  3. Reviewer Dashboard: Upon accepting, reviewers access the manuscript and review instructions through their reviewer dashboard in OJS.

4. Peer-Review Evaluation

  1. Blind Review: The review is typically double-blind (reviewers do not see author identities, and authors do not see reviewer identities), unless another model (single-blind or open) is specified.
  2. Review Submission: Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their review reports and recommendations (e.g., Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, Reject) through OJS.
  3. Comments:
    Reviewers provide:
    • Comments to the editor
    • Comments to the author
    • Optional annotated files or attachments

5. Editorial Decision

After reviews are submitted:

  1. Evaluation by Editor: The editor reviews all reviewer reports and makes a decision based on consensus and journal criteria.
  2. Decision Options:
    Common decisions include:
    • Accept
    • Accept with Minor Revisions
    • Invite Major Revisions
    • Reject
  3. Communication to Author: The decision, along with reviewer comments, is communicated to the author through OJS.

6. Revision and Re-Review (if applicable)

  1. Revision Submission: Authors revise their manuscript in response to reviewer/editor comments and resubmit via OJS.
  2. Re-Evaluation:
    The revised manuscript may be:
    • Re-assigned to the original reviewers
    • Sent to new reviewers
    • Reviewed by the handling editor alone
  3. Final Recommendation: The editor makes a final recommendation based on the revised submission and peer feedback.

7. Final Acceptance and Production

Once a manuscript is accepted:

  1. Copyediting & Proofreading: The accepted manuscript moves to copyediting, where editorial staff improve clarity, formatting, and style.
  2. Layout & Galley Production: Final production generates published formats (PDF, HTML).
  3. Publication: The article is published online in an upcoming JDIC issue and indexed according to our indexing policies.

8. Record of Review Process

  • OJS maintains a complete audit trail of reviewer assignments, recommendations, editorial decisions, and communications.
  • The system supports transparency and accountability throughout the peer-review workflow.

Summary of the Peer-Review Stages

  1. Article submission
  2. Editorial initial check
  3. Assignment to an editor
  4. Reviewer invitation and acceptance
  5. Reviewer evaluation and reports
  6. Editorial decision
  7. Revision(s), if necessary
  8. Final acceptance
  9. Copyediting, production, and publication