PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The Journal of AI-Driven Intelligent Systems (JADINS) applies a rigorous, fair, confidential, and independent peer-review process to ensure the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, and relevance of all manuscripts considered for publication.

JADINS uses a double-blind peer-review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process. Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.

Editorial decisions are based solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, relevance to the journal's aims and scope, ethical compliance, clarity, reproducibility, and contribution to the advancement of AI-driven intelligent systems.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit manuscripts electronically through the JADINS Online Journal System (OJS).

Before submission, authors must ensure that the manuscript:

  • follows the official JADINS manuscript template;
  • complies with the Author Guidelines;
  • is original and has not been published previously;
  • is not under consideration by another journal;
  • contains complete and accurate metadata;
  • includes all required ethical and publication statements.

The official JADINS template requires manuscripts to follow the prescribed journal format and structure.

2. Administrative and Technical Screening

After submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative and technical check.

The manuscript is checked for:

  • completeness of submission files;
  • compliance with the JADINS template;
  • manuscript organization and formatting;
  • author and affiliation information;
  • abstract and keywords;
  • figures and tables;
  • references and citation style;
  • required declarations and supporting information.

Manuscripts that do not meet the technical requirements may be returned to the author for correction before further evaluation.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the technical check are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

The initial screening assesses:

  • suitability for the aims and scope of JADINS;
  • originality and scientific novelty;
  • clarity of the research problem;
  • relevance of the research gap;
  • methodological quality;
  • scientific contribution;
  • quality of presentation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • similarity with previously published work.

For research involving artificial intelligence and machine learning, the editor may also assess whether the manuscript provides adequate information on:

  • dataset characteristics;
  • preprocessing procedures;
  • training, validation, and testing;
  • baseline comparison;
  • evaluation metrics;
  • robustness;
  • explainability, where applicable;
  • reproducibility.

The target time for this stage is approximately 7–14 days.

4. Similarity and Publication Ethics Screening

Submitted manuscripts may be screened using plagiarism or similarity-detection software.

Similarity reports are evaluated contextually. A numerical similarity percentage alone is not automatically considered evidence of plagiarism.

The editorial team may investigate suspected:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate publication;
  • inappropriate text recycling;
  • fabrication or falsification of data;
  • manipulated figures or images;
  • citation manipulation;
  • authorship manipulation;
  • undeclared competing interests;
  • fabricated references;
  • unethical research practices.

Manuscripts involving serious ethical concerns may be rejected before external peer review.

JADINS also requires several research-integrity statements, including Funding Information, Author Contributions, Conflict of Interest, Ethical Approval where applicable, and Data Availability.

5. Desk Rejection

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it:

  • falls outside the aims and scope of JADINS;
  • lacks sufficient scientific novelty;
  • has serious methodological weaknesses;
  • presents only routine software implementation;
  • lacks a clear contribution to artificial intelligence or intelligent systems;
  • provides insufficient experimental validation;
  • contains serious language or presentation problems;
  • substantially fails to comply with the JADINS template;
  • contains plagiarism or other publication-ethics violations;
  • makes unsupported or unreliable scientific claims.

Desk rejection enables authors to receive an early editorial decision without unnecessary delay.

6. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass the editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;
  • academic and research experience;
  • publication record;
  • methodological competence;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of significant conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide a timely and constructive review.

The editor may invite additional reviewers when the manuscript is highly interdisciplinary or when reviewer recommendations differ substantially.

7. Double-Blind Peer Review

JADINS applies a double-blind peer-review process.

During the review process:

  • reviewers do not know the identities of the authors;
  • authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

Authors should therefore avoid including information in the main manuscript that unnecessarily reveals their identity.

Reviewer identities and reports are treated as confidential editorial information.

8. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and Novelty

  • Does the manuscript present original research?
  • Is the scientific novelty clearly demonstrated?
  • Does the study contribute new knowledge?

Relevance to JADINS

  • Is the manuscript consistent with the journal's aims and scope?
  • Does it make a meaningful contribution to AI-driven intelligent systems?

Research Problem and Contribution

  • Is the research problem clearly defined?
  • Is the research gap adequately established?
  • Are the research objectives and contributions clear?

Methodological Rigor

  • Is the research design scientifically appropriate?
  • Are the methods sufficiently detailed?
  • Can the study reasonably be reproduced?

AI and Machine Learning Methodology

Where applicable, reviewers assess:

  • dataset provenance and quality;
  • preprocessing procedures;
  • prevention of data leakage;
  • training and validation protocols;
  • model configuration;
  • hyperparameter tuning;
  • baseline comparisons;
  • evaluation metrics;
  • statistical validation;
  • robustness;
  • explainability;
  • reproducibility.

Results and Discussion

  • Are the findings clearly presented?
  • Are conclusions supported by the results?
  • Are findings critically compared with previous research?
  • Are limitations appropriately discussed?

Presentation Quality

  • Is the manuscript logically organized?
  • Are figures and tables clear?
  • Are references relevant and appropriate?
  • Is the academic English sufficiently clear?

Ethical Compliance

  • Are funding, conflicts of interest, data availability, and ethical requirements appropriately disclosed?

9. Peer Review Period

The target period for external peer review is approximately:

3–6 weeks

The actual review period may vary depending on:

  • manuscript complexity;
  • reviewer availability;
  • disciplinary specialization;
  • number of review rounds;
  • reviewer response time.

JADINS seeks to balance timely editorial decisions with thorough scientific evaluation.

10. Reviewer Recommendations

After reviewing the manuscript, reviewers may recommend:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires limited corrections or clarification.

Major Revision

Substantial scientific, methodological, or presentation changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Resubmit for Review

The manuscript requires significant revision and should undergo another round of peer review.

Reject

The manuscript contains fundamental scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

11. Editorial Decision

After receiving the reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates:

  • reviewer recommendations;
  • scientific arguments raised by reviewers;
  • consistency between reviewer reports;
  • manuscript quality;
  • relevance to JADINS;
  • ethical compliance.

The editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  • Accept;
  • Minor Revision;
  • Major Revision;
  • Resubmit for Review;
  • Reject.

If reviewer recommendations conflict substantially, the editor may:

  • perform an independent assessment;
  • request clarification from reviewers;
  • appoint an additional reviewer.

12. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision must submit:

  1. a revised manuscript;
  2. a detailed response to reviewers;
  3. a point-by-point explanation of all changes made.

The normal target period for author revision is approximately:

2–4 weeks

Authors should respond professionally and scientifically to every reviewer and editor comment.

When an author disagrees with a reviewer recommendation, the author should provide a clear and evidence-based scientific justification.

13. Response to Reviewers

Authors are encouraged to use the following response format:

Reviewer Comment:
[Insert reviewer comment]

Author Response:
Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised the manuscript by...

Revision Made:
The revised text has been added to Section X, Page X, Lines X–X.

All comments should be addressed individually.

14. Subsequent Review Rounds

Revised manuscripts may be:

  • evaluated directly by the handling editor;
  • returned to the original reviewers;
  • sent to additional reviewers where necessary.

Major revisions will normally undergo further evaluation.

More than one review round may be required until the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets JADINS publication standards.

15. Final Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted when:

  • reviewer comments have been adequately addressed;
  • the methodology is scientifically sound;
  • the findings are sufficiently supported;
  • the manuscript demonstrates meaningful novelty and contribution;
  • publication ethics requirements have been satisfied;
  • the manuscript complies with JADINS editorial and formatting standards.

The final acceptance decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated handling editor.

Acceptance decisions are based on scientific merit and are independent of publication fees or other financial considerations.

16. Rejection After Peer Review

A manuscript may be rejected after peer review if:

  • major methodological weaknesses remain unresolved;
  • reviewer concerns are not adequately addressed;
  • findings are unreliable;
  • novelty is insufficient;
  • scientific contribution is limited;
  • ethical concerns arise;
  • revision quality is inadequate.

A rejected manuscript is considered closed unless the editor explicitly invites a new submission.

17. Editing and Layout

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage.

The production process may include:

  • copyediting;
  • language consistency checking;
  • reference verification;
  • metadata checking;
  • layout editing;
  • figure preparation;
  • proofreading.

The target period for editing and layout is approximately:

1–2 weeks

depending on manuscript complexity and the journal publication schedule.

18. Author Proofreading

The corresponding author may receive a proof before publication.

Authors should carefully verify:

  • article title;
  • author names;
  • affiliations;
  • abstract;
  • figures;
  • tables;
  • equations;
  • references;
  • typographical errors;
  • layout.

Proof correction should normally be limited to production errors and minor factual corrections.

Substantial changes to the scientific content after acceptance require editorial approval.

19. Publication

After final production and approval, the article is published online according to the JADINS publication schedule.

Articles may be published as:

  • Online First, where applicable; and/or
  • part of a scheduled volume and issue.

The published article will include official bibliographic metadata and DOI where applicable.

20. Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must treat all submitted manuscripts as confidential documents.

They must not:

  • disclose unpublished manuscript information;
  • distribute manuscript files;
  • discuss confidential content with unauthorized individuals;
  • use unpublished information for personal research or advantage.

Confidentiality continues even after the editorial process has ended.

21. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting an assignment.

Potential conflicts include:

  • recent collaboration with authors;
  • shared institutional affiliation;
  • financial relationships;
  • personal relationships;
  • direct academic competition;
  • professional disputes.

Reviewers with significant conflicts must decline the review assignment.

Editors must also recuse themselves when a relevant conflict exists.

22. Ethical Conduct of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective and constructive comments;
  • use professional language;
  • avoid personal criticism;
  • maintain confidentiality;
  • identify significant scientific weaknesses;
  • declare conflicts of interest;
  • avoid citation coercion;
  • report suspected ethical misconduct to the editor.

Reviewer recommendations should be supported by scientific reasoning.

23. Use of Artificial Intelligence During Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts.

Confidential manuscript content, unpublished data, figures, or reviewer reports should not be uploaded into third-party Generative AI systems when confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.

If AI-assisted tools are used for limited editorial or language support, the human reviewer or editor remains fully responsible for:

  • scientific judgment;
  • accuracy;
  • confidentiality;
  • fairness;
  • ethical compliance.

Artificial intelligence must not replace independent human scholarly evaluation.

24. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a substantial scientific or procedural error has occurred.

Appeals should:

  • clearly identify the manuscript;
  • explain the basis of the appeal;
  • identify the alleged scientific or procedural error;
  • provide evidence where relevant;
  • be written professionally.

An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance.

Complaints related to reviewer conduct, editorial procedures, publication ethics, or journal management may be submitted to the JADINS editorial office and will be evaluated objectively and confidentially.

Estimated Peer Review Timeline

Editorial Stage Estimated Time
Manuscript Submission Day 0
Administrative & Technical Check Within initial screening period
Initial Editorial Screening 7–14 days
External Peer Review 3–6 weeks
Author Revision 2–4 weeks
Subsequent Review As required
Final Editorial Decision Variable
Editing & Layout 1–2 weeks
Publication According to journal schedule

Note: These timelines are estimates and may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, number of review rounds, revision quality, ethical investigations, and editorial workload.

JADINS Peer Review Workflow

Manuscript Submission
↓
Administrative & Technical Check
↓
Initial Editorial Screening
↓
Similarity & Ethics Screening
↓
Scope and Scientific Quality Assessment

If requirements are not met:
→ Technical Correction / Desk Rejection

If requirements are met:
↓
Assignment to at least Two Independent Reviewers
↓
Double-Blind Peer Review
↓
Reviewer Recommendations
↓
Editorial Decision

If Accepted

Acceptance
↓
Editing & Layout
↓
Author Proofreading
↓
Publication

If Revision Is Required

Minor/Major Revision
↓
Author Revision
↓
Editorial Re-evaluation / Re-review
↓
Final Decision

If Rejected

Reject
↓
Editorial Process Ends