Review Process

Review Process

The Journal of Intelligent Computing and Connected Systems (JICCS) follows a structured peer-review process to evaluate the quality, originality, relevance, and technical contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The review process is designed to provide authors with constructive feedback while maintaining appropriate standards of academic integrity and confidentiality.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the JICCS online submission system.

At the time of submission, authors should provide the required manuscript information, author details, declarations, and supporting files.

The submitted manuscript should comply with the journal's Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation requirements.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment.

The editorial team may check:

  • Whether the manuscript falls within the scope of JICCS.
  • Whether the submission is sufficiently complete.
  • Compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
  • Basic academic and technical quality.
  • Potential ethical or publication concerns.
  • Similarity or plagiarism-related concerns where applicable.

A manuscript that does not meet the journal's basic requirements or falls outside the journal's scope may be returned to the authors or declined before external peer review.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening may be assigned to appropriate reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on factors such as:

  • Relevant subject expertise.
  • Research experience.
  • Technical knowledge.
  • Availability.
  • Potential conflicts of interest.

The editorial team aims to select reviewers who can provide an objective and informed assessment of the manuscript.

4. Peer Review

Selected reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to the journal's review criteria.

Reviewers may consider:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Scientific and technical quality.
  • Methodology.
  • Accuracy and validity of results.
  • Clarity and organization.
  • Relevance to the journal's scope.
  • Quality of discussion and conclusions.
  • Adequacy of references.
  • Overall contribution to the field.

Reviewers provide comments and recommendations to assist the editorial team in making an informed decision.

5. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the editor evaluates the manuscript together with the reviewers' comments.

Depending on the outcome of the evaluation, the editorial decision may include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The final decision is made by the editorial team and is not determined solely by an individual reviewer.

6. Revision

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the reviewers' and editor's comments.

Authors should:

  • Revise the manuscript accordingly.
  • Clearly identify or explain changes made.
  • Provide a response to each significant reviewer comment.
  • Submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation when appropriate.

7. Re-Review

When substantial revisions are required, the revised manuscript may undergo another round of peer review.

The purpose of re-review is to determine whether the authors have adequately addressed the concerns raised during the previous review stage.

The number of review rounds may vary depending on the manuscript and editorial requirements.

8. Final Acceptance

Once the editorial team determines that the manuscript meets the journal's requirements, the manuscript may be formally accepted for publication.

Authors will receive an official acceptance notification through the journal's designated communication system.

9. Publication Processing

After acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the publication stage.

Depending on the journal's workflow, this may include:

  • Final manuscript checks.
  • Copyediting or formatting.
  • Preparation of publication files.
  • Author verification where applicable.
  • Assignment of publication information.
  • Online publication.

Any applicable publication charge will be communicated to the authors according to the journal's Publication Charges policy.

10. Confidentiality

The manuscript and peer-review process are treated as confidential.

Reviewers and editorial participants should not disclose, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript information outside the review process.

11. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers are expected to provide independent and objective assessments.

Potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to the editorial team. A reviewer may be asked to decline an assignment when a significant conflict could affect impartiality.

12. Estimated Review Timeline

The duration of peer review may vary depending on:

  • Manuscript complexity.
  • Availability of suitable reviewers.
  • Number of review rounds.
  • Time required for authors to complete revisions.
  • Editorial workload.

JICCS aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining appropriate standards of peer review.

13. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly and technical evaluation of submitted manuscripts and the applicable policies of the journal.

Payment of any applicable publication charge does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

14. Summary of the Review Workflow

Submission → Initial Editorial Screening → Reviewer Selection → Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision (if required) → Re-Review (if required) → Final Acceptance → Publication