Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Technology Information (JAITI) applies a rigorous, transparent, and impartial peer-review process to ensure that all published manuscripts meet appropriate standards of scientific quality, originality, relevance, and ethical integrity. The review process is designed to support editorial decisions while providing constructive feedback to authors.

All manuscripts submitted to JAITI are evaluated according to the journal's editorial policies, scope, and publication ethics. Acceptance for publication depends on the manuscript's scientific merit, methodological soundness, contribution to the field, and the recommendations of the reviewers and editorial team.

1. Review Process Overview

01

Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks the manuscript for relevance to the journal's scope, completeness, originality, basic methodological quality, formatting requirements, and compliance with publication ethics.

02

Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. Reviewers are selected based on their competence and the absence of identifiable conflicts of interest.

03

Peer Review

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's originality, technical quality, research design, analysis, interpretation, clarity, relevance, and contribution to knowledge. They provide recommendations and constructive comments.

04

Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's quality, and the journal's standards before making a decision. Authors are informed of the decision and any required revisions.

05

Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are required, authors must address the reviewers' and editor's comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

06

Final Decision

The editor makes the final decision based on the revised manuscript, the authors' responses, the reviewers' recommendations, and the journal's publication requirements.

2. Type of Peer Review

Double-Blind Peer Review

JAITI uses a double-blind peer-review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another during the review process. Authors must ensure that their manuscripts and supplementary files do not unnecessarily reveal their identities. Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and avoid attempting to identify authors.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to protect the anonymity of all parties. However, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when research details or publicly available materials make identification possible.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Originality and Novelty

The manuscript presents original work and demonstrates a meaningful contribution to existing knowledge.

Scientific and Technical Quality

The research design, methods, analysis, and interpretation are appropriate, accurate, and sufficiently explained.

Relevance and Scope

The manuscript is relevant to the journal's aims and scope and is of interest to its intended readership.

Clarity and Presentation

The manuscript is logically organized, clearly written, and supported by appropriate tables, figures, and references.

Ethical Compliance

The research follows applicable ethical standards, including appropriate consent, approvals, data integrity, and citation practices where relevant.

References and Reproducibility

The literature is appropriately cited, and the methods and evidence are described sufficiently to support evaluation and, where applicable, reproducibility.

4. Editorial Decisions

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and can proceed to the next stage of publication, subject to any necessary editorial preparation.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited changes to improve clarity, presentation, referencing, or specific aspects of the analysis.

Major Revision

Substantial revisions are required to address significant concerns. The revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards, falls outside its scope, has fundamental methodological or ethical problems, or cannot be adequately improved through revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations, but the final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor. The editor may seek additional reviews when necessary and is not required to follow a recommendation that is inconsistent with the evidence or the journal's policies.

5. Author Responsibilities

  • Authors must submit original work that has not been published previously and is not under consideration by another journal, except where the journal's policies explicitly permit otherwise.
  • Authors must ensure that all information, data, analyses, citations, figures, and tables are accurate and appropriately documented.
  • Authors must disclose relevant conflicts of interest, funding sources, and any other information required by the journal.
  • Authors must respond to reviewer and editor comments professionally and provide a clear, point-by-point explanation of revisions or disagreements.
  • Authors must submit revised manuscripts within the deadline communicated by the editorial office or request an extension when justified.
  • Authors must not attempt to influence reviewers or editors improperly and must respect the confidentiality of the review process.

6. Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Reviewers must assess manuscripts objectively, fairly, and constructively, basing their evaluations on scholarly merit rather than personal preferences or other irrelevant considerations.
  • Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Reviewers must disclose potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality may be compromised.
  • Reviewers should identify relevant literature that has not been cited and alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical concerns.
  • Reviewers should complete evaluations within the agreed timeframe or inform the editor promptly if additional time is required.

7. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose manuscript contents, reviewer reports, or editorial discussions to unauthorized individuals. Manuscripts may be shared only with individuals involved in the editorial process or when disclosure is required for legitimate ethical or legal reasons.

Anyone involved in reviewing or making editorial decisions must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. Where a conflict could compromise impartiality, the individual must withdraw from the relevant review or decision-making process, and an appropriate alternative must be appointed.

8. Review Timeline

JAITI aims to process manuscripts as efficiently as possible while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review. The time required for each submission may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the number of review rounds, and the extent of revisions required.

Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and any required actions through the journal's submission system or official editorial correspondence. If delays occur, the editorial office may provide updates when appropriate. The journal does not guarantee a fixed review or publication timeframe.

9. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

JAITI takes allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously. Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other potential ethical violations may be investigated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics procedures.

Where necessary, the editorial team may request clarification, supporting documentation, or institutional information from the authors. Editorial action will be proportionate to the nature and seriousness of the concern and may include rejection, suspension of the review process, correction, or other appropriate measures consistent with the journal's policies.

10. Editorial Independence and Appeals

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, relevance to the journal, ethical compliance, and the available review evidence. Decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional affiliations, or other inappropriate external pressures.

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a substantive procedural error, a significant misunderstanding of the manuscript, or an inappropriate consideration may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals must provide clear evidence and will be considered according to the journal's applicable policies. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

11. Final Publication Decision

A manuscript is accepted for publication only after the responsible editor determines that it satisfies the journal's scientific, technical, editorial, and ethical requirements. Acceptance remains subject to completion of the journal's final editorial and production procedures. The editorial team reserves the right to request additional clarification or corrections when necessary to protect the accuracy and integrity of the scholarly record.

Publication Ethics Reference

JAITI encourages editors, reviewers, and authors to follow recognized standards of publication ethics and responsible peer review. For further guidance, please consult the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Visit COPE Website