Ethics for Reviewers

Ethics for Reviewers

The Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and ethical peer review. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality and credibility of scholarly publishing.
This policy outlines the ethical responsibilities and expected conduct of reviewers.

1. Core Principles

Reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

  • Integrity and professionalism

  • Objectivity and fairness

  • Confidentiality

  • Transparency in conflicts of interest

  • Respectful and constructive communication

2. Confidentiality

Manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential.

Reviewers must NOT:

  • share the manuscript or its content with anyone

  • use unpublished information for personal advantage

  • upload the manuscript to AI tools or external platforms

  • discuss the manuscript with others outside the editorial system

If reviewers require advice from another expert, they must request permission from the editor.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must declare a conflict of interest and decline the review if they:

  • have collaborated with the authors recently

  • work in the same institution as the authors

  • have personal relationships with the authors

  • have financial or commercial interests related to the manuscript

  • are in direct competition with the authors’ research

If the conflict becomes apparent during review, the reviewer must inform the editor immediately.

4. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must:

  • evaluate manuscripts objectively based on scientific merit

  • avoid bias due to nationality, gender, religion, political views, or institutional affiliation

  • provide evidence-based criticism rather than personal opinions

  • focus on improving the manuscript quality

Personal criticism of authors is strictly unacceptable.

5. Timeliness

Reviewers must:

  • accept reviews only if they can meet the deadline

  • deliver the review within the agreed timeframe

  • notify the editor immediately if delays occur

Delays affect authors and publication timelines.

6. Constructive Feedback

Review reports must be:

  • clear, professional, and respectful

  • focused on technical/scientific issues

  • accompanied by specific suggestions for improvement

Reviewers should indicate:

  • what must be corrected (major revision)

  • what is recommended (minor revision)

7. Ethical Misconduct Reporting

Reviewers should report suspected misconduct, including:

  • plagiarism or high similarity

  • duplicate submission/publication

  • data fabrication or falsification

  • manipulated images or results

  • unethical experiments or data collection

  • citation manipulation

Reviewers should provide:

  • evidence/examples

  • relevant sources if available

8. Use of AI Tools

Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or any part of the manuscript into external AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT or similar systems) in a way that violates confidentiality.
If AI tools are used for language suggestions, it must not involve sharing confidential content.

9. Recommendation Integrity

Reviewers must ensure:

  • recommendations are aligned with comments and scoring

  • rejection decisions are justified with clear scientific reasons

  • acceptance is granted only when scientific contribution is strong and validated

10. Respect for Intellectual Property

Reviewers must not:

  • copy ideas, methods, or results

  • use manuscript content in their own work before publication

  • distribute unpublished data or figures

11. Compliance

Any violation of reviewer ethics may lead to:

  • removal from reviewer database

  • rejection of reviewer invitations in future

  • reporting misconduct to institutions if necessary