Review Criteria / Evaluation Form

Review Criteria / Evaluation Form

Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS)

This evaluation form is designed to support reviewers in providing a consistent, fair, and high-quality peer review for all submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers are kindly requested to:

  • complete the scoring section,

  • provide detailed comments,

  • and submit a final recommendation.

A. Manuscript Information

  • Manuscript Title: _____________________________

  • Manuscript ID: _______________________________

  • Review Date: _________________________________

  • Reviewer Name (optional): _____________________

B. Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest

Please confirm the following:

☐ I confirm that I have no conflict of interest with the authors.
☐ I will treat this manuscript as confidential and will not share it.

If a conflict exists, please notify the editor immediately:
Conflict details (if any): _______________________________________

C. Overall Evaluation (Scoring)

Please score each item from 1 to 5:

Scale:

  • 1 = Poor / Not acceptable

  • 2 = Weak

  • 3 = Acceptable

  • 4 = Good

  • 5 = Excellent

Criterion Score (1–5)
1. Relevance to Journal Scope ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
2. Originality / Novelty ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
3. Significance of Contribution ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
4. Technical Soundness / Correctness ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
5. Methodology Appropriateness ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
6. Experimental Design / Validation ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
7. Results Quality and Interpretation ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
8. Comparison with Related Work / Baselines ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
9. Clarity of Writing and Organization ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
10. Quality of Figures and Tables ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
11. Reference Quality and Formatting (IEEE) ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5
12. Ethical Compliance / Research Integrity ☐1 ☐2 ☐3 ☐4 ☐5

D. Technical Checklist

Please mark applicable items:

D.1 Manuscript Presentation

☐ Title is clear and informative
☐ Abstract is structured and within recommended length
☐ Keywords are relevant and sufficient
☐ Paper is well-organized (sections and flow)
☐ Language quality is acceptable

D.2 Scientific and Technical Quality

☐ Research problem is clearly stated
☐ Methodology is correct and reproducible
☐ Datasets and tools are described clearly
☐ Results are supported by evidence and analysis
☐ Conclusions are consistent with results
☐ Limitations and future work are addressed

D.3 References

☐ Sufficient references are included
☐ References are recent and high-quality
☐ All references are cited correctly in the text
☐ No suspicious citation behavior

E. Reviewer Comments

E.1 Summary of the Manuscript

(Briefly summarize the manuscript in 3–5 lines.)

E.2 Strengths

(List the major strengths of the paper.)

E.3 Major Revisions Required

(Important issues that must be addressed before acceptance.)

E.4 Minor Revisions Required

(Small corrections such as language, formatting, clarity.)

F. Ethical Concerns (if any)

Please indicate if you suspect:

☐ Plagiarism / high similarity
☐ Duplicate submission / redundant publication
☐ Data fabrication or falsification
☐ Unethical research practice
☐ Inappropriate citations
☐ Other: _______________________________

If yes, please provide details/evidence:

G. Final Recommendation

Please select one decision:

☐ Accept
☐ Minor Revision
☐ Major Revision
☐ Reject

Justification for recommendation:

H. Confidential Comments to the Editor (Optional)

(These comments will not be shared with authors.)