Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS)

Thank you for serving as a reviewer for the Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS). Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing and plays a vital role in maintaining scientific quality, integrity, and credibility.
This guideline outlines the responsibilities, review criteria, ethical standards, and reporting procedure expected from JACS reviewers.

1. Purpose of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to:

  • ensure the scientific quality and originality of manuscripts

  • confirm methodological correctness and reliability

  • improve clarity, structure, and academic contribution

  • support fair editorial decisions

  • prevent unethical practices (plagiarism, manipulation, low novelty)

2. Reviewer Responsibilities

As a JACS reviewer, you are expected to:

  • provide an objective, constructive, and evidence-based evaluation

  • submit the review within the assigned deadline

  • maintain strict confidentiality of manuscript content

  • declare any conflict of interest immediately

  • report ethical concerns (plagiarism, duplication, fabricated data)

3. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts are confidential documents.

Reviewers must NOT:

  • share the manuscript with others

  • use manuscript content for personal research advantage

  • discuss manuscript findings before publication

  • contact the authors directly

4. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review if they:

  • have personal/professional relationships with authors

  • are in direct scientific competition

  • have financial or institutional conflict

  • have recently co-authored with the authors

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

5.1 Originality and Novelty

  • Does the manuscript provide a new contribution?

  • Is the research problem significant and well motivated?

5.2 Relevance to Journal Scope

  • Is the topic aligned with Computer Science and JACS themes?

5.3 Technical Quality

  • Are methods appropriate and correctly applied?

  • Are experiments well-designed and reproducible?

  • Is the dataset appropriate and properly described?

5.4 Results and Discussion

  • Are results strong, clear, and valid?

  • Are comparisons with baseline methods included?

  • Are findings correctly interpreted without exaggeration?

5.5 Presentation and Writing

  • Is the manuscript well-structured and understandable?

  • Are figures/tables clear and correctly referenced?

  • Is English language acceptable?

5.6 References

  • Are citations sufficient and recent?

  • Are references properly formatted (IEEE style)?

6. Recommendation Options

Reviewers should provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Each recommendation must be supported with clear justifications.

7. Review Report Structure

A high-quality review report should include:

  1. Summary of the manuscript (1–2 paragraphs)

  2. Strengths

  3. Major Comments (essential corrections)

  4. Minor Comments (stylistic / formatting issues)

  5. Final Recommendation

8. Ethical Issues

Reviewers should immediately report any of the following:

  • plagiarism or high similarity

  • duplicate submission/publication

  • manipulated results / fabricated data

  • improper citations (citation manipulation)

  • unethical data collection

9. Plagiarism and Similarity

If plagiarism is suspected:

  • provide examples with highlighted sections

  • suggest cross-check sources if possible

  • recommend editorial action

10. Timeline

Reviewers are requested to complete the evaluation within:

⏳ 7–14 days (recommended)

If more time is needed, reviewers should inform the editorial office.

11. Reviewer Recognition

JACS values reviewers and may provide:

  • reviewer certificate

  • annual acknowledgement list (optional)

  • editorial board invitation for high-performing reviewers

12. Communication

All reviewer communications must be conducted through the journal system only.