Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Journal of Intelligent Systems and Future Computing (JISFC) asks all reviewers to follow these guidelines, consistent with COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

1. General Responsibilities

  • Confidentiality: Treat the manuscript, and all information associated with it, as strictly confidential. Do not share, discuss, or reproduce any part of it without explicit permission from the editorial office.
  • Objectivity: Provide an unbiased, professional, and constructive review, focused on the manuscript's merits rather than the authors' identity, affiliation, or background — reviews are conducted under a double-anonymous model, and reviewers must not attempt to identify or independently research the authors' identities.
  • Timeliness: Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe, consistent with the journal's overall target of 16–18 weeks from submission to first editorial decision. If unable to meet the deadline, inform the editorial office promptly.
  • Conflict of Interest: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation, and decline to review where one exists, per the journal's Conflict of Interest Policy.

2. Use of AI Tools During Review

Reviewers must not upload manuscript content to public generative AI tools to assist with generating a review report. Doing so risks exposing unpublished, confidential author work to third-party systems and would breach the confidentiality obligations of this policy, consistent with the journal's AI Use Policy for Authors.

3. Review Process

Initial Evaluation:

  • Assess whether the manuscript fits the journal's scope and adheres to submission guidelines.

Key Evaluation Criteria:

  • Originality: Is the research novel and significant?
  • Technical Rigor: Are the methods sound, reproducible, and appropriate?
  • Clarity: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized?
  • Contribution: Does the work meaningfully advance the field?
  • Ethical Compliance: Verify appropriate ethical approvals, consent, and conflict-of-interest disclosures are present.

4. Components of the Review Report

  • Summary: A brief overview of the manuscript's contribution.
  • Strengths and Weaknesses: Key positives and significant shortcomings (e.g., methodological flaws, gaps in analysis, unclear writing).
  • Specific Comments: Numbered, and separated into:
    • Major Issues: Substantive concerns that must be addressed before acceptance.
    • Minor Issues: Typographical, clarity, or formatting concerns.
  • Recommendation: Accept without changes / Minor revisions required / Major revisions required / Reject.

5. Ethical Concerns

  • Plagiarism: Flag any suspected plagiarism or improperly cited material.
  • Duplicate Submission: Notify the editorial office if the manuscript appears to overlap substantially with other published or submitted work.
  • Misconduct: Report any indication of data fabrication, falsification, or other ethical violations.

6. Tone and Professionalism

Use respectful, constructive language focused on improving the manuscript. Avoid personal criticism of the authors.

7. Additional Points

  • Check that supplementary data and code, where provided, are adequate and properly documented.
  • Evaluate whether figures, tables, and visual elements are clear, necessary, and correctly presented.
  • Confirm references are relevant, sufficient, and appropriately cited.

8. Communicating with the Editor

Share concerns directly with the editorial office, particularly when recommending rejection or identifying ethical issues.

9. Confidentiality After Review

Do not use any unpublished data, methods, or insights from a reviewed manuscript for personal advantage, whether or not the manuscript is ultimately published.