Skip to content
Sciendor
Sign in
AIDSISAI Data Science and Intelligent Systems
AIDSIS
Submit

Policies

Peer-Review Policy

Every manuscript undergoes initial editorial assessment followed by evaluation by at least 2 independent reviewers under a double-blind model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.

Double-blind reviewAt least 2 reviewersReports requested within 21 days
On this page

Review model

AI Data Science and Intelligent Systems operates double-blind peer review. Author details are recorded separately from the manuscript and are not disclosed to reviewers; authors are required to anonymise the manuscript file, which is supplied to reviewers under a neutral file name. Reviewers are identified to authors only as “Reviewer 1”, “Reviewer 2” and so on, and this separation is maintained at every stage of the process.

Every manuscript sent for review is assessed by at least 2 independent reviewers chosen for subject expertise. A manuscript is not sent for review until that number of reviewers is engaged, and no outcome is communicated until that number of reviews has been received. Reviewers are asked to submit their reports within 21 days.

What reviewers assess

Reviewers score each manuscript from 1 (Poor) to 5 (Excellent) against 10 criteria:

  • Originality and novelty — Does the work present genuinely new ideas, methods or findings?
  • Significance and impact — How important are the contributions to the field?
  • Technical soundness — Is the work technically correct and free of errors?
  • Methodology and experimental design — Are the methods appropriate, rigorous and reproducible?
  • Literature review and referencing — Is prior work adequately surveyed and correctly attributed?
  • Clarity, structure and language — Is the manuscript well organised and clearly written?
  • Quality of figures and tables — Are visuals legible, necessary and well captioned?
  • Statistical and analytical validity — Are the analyses appropriate and correctly interpreted?
  • Conclusions supported by results — Do the claims follow from the evidence presented?
  • Relevance to the journal's scope — Does the work fit the readership of this journal?

They may also flag ethical concerns, suspected plagiarism, inadequate data availability, a need for language editing or specialist statistical review, and any conflict of interest of their own. Such concerns are brought to the editor’s attention and are not passed to the authors verbatim.

Initial review checklist

Before external review, each manuscript is assessed against the following points, and the completed checklist forms part of the permanent editorial record:

  • Within the aims & scope of the journal
  • Appears original and not previously published
  • Structure and sectioning meet journal requirements
  • Language quality is adequate for peer review
  • References are complete and correctly formatted
  • Figures and tables are legible and properly captioned
  • Ethics, consent and data statements are present
  • Funding and conflict-of-interest statements are complete
  • Similarity check is within the acceptable threshold

How the outcome is decided

Each reviewer makes one of 4 recommendations. Every recommendation is taken into account, and the outcome is determined by the most severe recommendation received:

  1. Rejected — If any reviewer rejects the manuscript, it is rejected.
  2. Accepted with major revision — Otherwise, if any reviewer asks for a major revision, the author resubmits the full manuscript.
  3. Accepted with minor revision — Otherwise, if any reviewer asks for a minor revision, the author answers the reviewers' queries.
  4. Accepted as it is — Only when every reviewer accepts is the manuscript accepted as it is.

Possible decisions

Accepted as it is
The manuscript is publishable as submitted. It is accepted and moves to production.
Accepted with minor revision
The author answers every reviewer query point by point. No new manuscript is needed — the editor checks the answers and accepts.
Accepted with major revision
The author revises and resubmits the full manuscript, answering every reviewer comment, and it returns to peer review.
Rejected
The manuscript is not accepted for publication.
Rejected at initial review
Rejected by the editor at initial review, without peer review — typically out of scope or below the journal's threshold.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not circulate them, use their content before publication, or discuss them outside the review process. Reviewers who are unable to assess a manuscript impartially are asked to decline the invitation promptly.

Recognition

The journal recognises the contribution of its reviewers. Each completed review is acknowledged with a certificate of peer review naming the reviewer, the manuscript reference and the date, suitable for use in promotion and funding applications. The certificate identifies the manuscript by reference number only, so it evidences the contribution without breaching confidentiality.

Appeals

Authors may appeal a decision by writing to [email protected] setting out their grounds. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, an independent member of the editorial board who was not involved in the original decision.

The manuscript lifecycle

  1. 1

    Submission — Pending

    Author

    The corresponding author provides the manuscript details and author information and uploads the manuscript as a Word document. A manuscript reference number is issued on submission, and all co-authors are notified of their authorship.

  2. 2

    Initial review — With editor

    Editor

    An editor assesses the manuscript against a 9-point checklist covering scope, originality, structure, language, references, figures, ethics, declarations and similarity. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements are declined without external review.

  3. 3

    Reviewer invitation

    Editor

    Reviewers are selected from the journal's reviewer pool on the basis of their expertise in the research domain and subject of the manuscript, and potential conflicts of interest are checked before invitations are issued. A manuscript is not sent for review until at least 2 reviewers are engaged.

  4. 4

    Peer review — In review

    Reviewers

    Reviewers receive the manuscript files and details, without any information identifying the authors. Each submits a structured report — ratings against 10 criteria, any concerns requiring the editor's attention, numbered comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor — together with one of 4 recommendations.

  5. 5

    Outcome

    Editor

    Once the required 2 reviews have been received, the outcome is determined by the rule set out above and communicated to the authors together with the reviewers' comments.

  6. 6

    Revision

    Author

    Following a major revision decision, the authors submit a fully revised manuscript with a response to every comment, and the manuscript returns to peer review. Following a minor revision decision, the authors respond to the reviewers' queries point by point and the editor evaluates the responses. All previous versions are retained in the editorial record.

  7. 7

    Production

    Editor

    Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication by the editorial office and assigned to the current volume and issue with an article number, page range and DOI.

  8. 8

    Publication

    Journal

    The article is published open access as the version of record, in full-text HTML and PDF, and its metadata is made available to indexing services.