Peer Review Process

Journal of Advanced Computing and Digital Information Systems (JACDIS) applies a pre-review and double-blind peer review process to ensure the editorial quality, integrity, and scholarly quality of manuscripts considered for publication.

1. Pre-Review

Every newly submitted manuscript undergoes pre-review by at least one editor. If the handling editor has expertise relevant to the article's field, one editor may conduct the pre-review. If not, the pre-review is conducted by two editors: a General Editor and a Subject Editor.

The General Editor evaluates editorial aspects, including alignment with the journal's aims and scope, plagiarism and similarity screening, language quality, completeness and relevance of references, manuscript format, and compliance with JACDIS author guidelines.

The Subject Editor evaluates minimum scholarly standards, including research contribution, novelty, methodology, state of the art, research gap, and the manuscript's scholarly suitability.

The Journal of Advanced Computing and Digital Information Systems (JACDIS) conducts similarity screening during initial editorial assessment. Manuscripts with a similarity index below 20% may proceed to peer review, subject to other submission requirements and editorial evaluation of the nature and context of textual overlap.

The similarity score is not the sole basis for determining plagiarism. Editors may assess the sources and context of detected similarities before taking appropriate action.

2. Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass pre-review are assigned to at least two external reviewers with relevant expertise in the research field who are not members of the JACDIS editorial team.

Reviewers are selected based on their competence, experience, subject expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are asked to confirm their willingness before receiving an assignment. Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline or withdraw from the review if any interest could influence, or could reasonably be perceived to influence, their objectivity.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

JACDIS uses double-blind peer review, in which the identities of authors are not disclosed to reviewers and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to authors during the review process.

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not use information obtained during peer review for personal, professional, financial, or competitive purposes.

Reviewers are also prohibited from using generative AI, including ChatGPT or similar services, to conduct or assist with peer review by entering all or part of a manuscript, data, figures, tables, or unpublished information into such systems as prompts.

4. Review Criteria and Publication Ethics

Reviewers primarily evaluate the substance and scholarly quality of the article, including:

  • importance of the research;
  • novelty and originality;
  • research gap and state of the art;
  • scholarly or technical contribution;
  • appropriateness and rigor of the methodology;
  • validity of the analysis and research findings;
  • quality of the discussion and conclusions; and
  • potential publication ethics violations identified during the review process.

As part of the scholarly integrity assessment, reviewers may identify and report suspected plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, data manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or other publication ethics concerns identified in the manuscript or during the review process.

Integrity screening is conducted as a layered review, with an initial screening by editors and an additional assessment by reviewers. Any concerns or suspected violations reported by reviewers will be further evaluated by the editors in accordance with JACDIS publication ethics policies.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, and well-supported assessments.

5. Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials that are essential to the research may be reviewed when necessary to assess the quality, validity, or completeness of the article.

6. Editorial Decision

The final decision is the responsibility of the JACDIS Editor and is based on an overall assessment of the manuscript, pre-review results, peer review reports, reviewer comments and recommendations, and relevant editorial and ethical considerations.

Reviewer recommendations are an important consideration but do not automatically determine the final decision. Editors may request clarification, additional reviews, or further evaluation when necessary.

Publication decisions are:

  • Accept Submission — the manuscript is accepted for publication.
  • Revision Required — the manuscript requires revision and may be evaluated again.
  • Resubmit for Review — the manuscript requires substantial revision and must undergo another review process.
  • Decline Submission — the manuscript is rejected for publication in JACDIS.

JACDIS does not guarantee acceptance of an initial manuscript submission.

7. Review Timeline and Manuscript Withdrawal

Each reviewer is given a maximum of seven (7) calendar days to complete one round of review. The review period begins on the date of assignment, after the reviewer confirms their willingness to review.

If a reviewer cannot complete the review within the specified period, JACDIS may grant an extension or appoint a replacement reviewer.

Authors may request manuscript withdrawal if there has been no change or progress in the editorial process for at least four (4) months from the date of submission. Withdrawal requests must be submitted formally to the editorial office and will be processed in accordance with JACDIS policy.

8. Review Reports and Publication Dates

Reviewer reports are not published with the article, and reviewers do not sign the reports provided to authors.

Each Research Article and Review Article published by JACDIS includes:

  • Received — the date the manuscript was first submitted;
  • Received in Revised Form — the date the final revised version was received;
  • Accepted — the date the manuscript was accepted for publication; and
  • Published — the date the article was officially published.

9. JACDIS Policy Statement on Peer Review

JACDIS is committed to conducting an independent, objective, confidential, and scholarly quality-based peer review process, with reference to the relevant principles and guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The publication decision remains the responsibility of the JACDIS editorial team and considers the pre-review, peer review, reviewer feedback, and relevant editorial and ethical considerations.