Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS)

The Journal of Advanced Computer Science (JACS) is committed to publishing high-quality research through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer-review process. Peer review ensures that all published articles meet international scientific standards in terms of originality, validity, and academic contribution.

1. Peer Review Model

JACS applies a Double-Blind Peer Review system:

  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

This ensures impartial evaluation and eliminates potential bias.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial evaluation to determine:

  • compliance with journal scope

  • completeness of the manuscript components

  • adherence to formatting/template requirements

  • language quality

  • plagiarism/similarity level

Manuscripts that do not meet basic requirements may be returned for correction or rejected before review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers based on:

  • scientific expertise in the manuscript topic

  • research experience and publications

  • absence of conflicts of interest

  • reviewer performance and reliability

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate submissions based on:

  • originality and novelty

  • technical correctness and methodology

  • clarity, structure, and academic writing

  • reliability of results and analysis

  • significance and contribution to the field

  • appropriateness of references and citation quality

5. Review Outcomes

Based on reviewer reports, the editorial decision may be:

  • Accept

  •  Minor Revision

  •  Major Revision

  •  Reject

Editors may request additional reviews when necessary.

6. Revision Process

If revision is requested:

  • authors must submit a revised manuscript

  • authors must provide a clear response to reviewers document

  • all changes should be highlighted

Failure to submit revisions within the allowed time may result in rejection or transfer to a later issue.

7. Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial board based on:

  • reviewer recommendations

  • scientific merit

  • policy compliance

  • ethical standards

The editorial decision is final.

8. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and reviewer reports are treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not disclose:

  • manuscript content

  • author or reviewer identities

  • review outcomes

9. Conflict of Interest

JACS requires all reviewers and editors to declare conflicts of interest. A reviewer will be replaced if conflict exists, including:

  • personal or professional relationships with authors

  • competing research interests

  • financial or institutional conflicts

10. Ethical Review Practices

The journal follows international ethical standards and practices in peer review:

  • fairness and neutrality

  • transparency in editorial handling

  • detection of misconduct

  • prevention of biased or abusive reviews

Any form of unethical behavior during review will be handled according to COPE guidelines.

11. Average Review Time

JACS aims to provide efficient review and decision timelines:

  • Initial screening: 3–7 days

  • Peer review process: 2–4 weeks

  • Final decision: 4–6 weeks (depending on revisions)

(Timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability.)

12. Reviewer Recognition

To recognize reviewer contributions, JACS may provide:

  • reviewer certificate

  • annual reviewer acknowledgment list

  • invitation to join the editorial board