Reviewers Guidelines

General Expectations

• Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, and timely evaluation of assigned manuscripts within the double-blind peer review framework. Reviewer identity remains confidential to authors, and vice versa.

Review Criteria

• Originality and contribution to the field of computing/informatics/intelligent systems
• Methodological soundness and reproducibility
• Clarity of writing, structure, and argumentation
• Adequacy and currency of literature review/citations (IEEE style)
• Alignment with journal scope

Review Timeline

• Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within 2–3 weeks of assignment. Extensions may be requested by contacting the handling editor in advance.

Confidentiality

• Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal advantage. All review correspondence remains confidential.

Conflict of Interest

• Reviewers must decline assignments where a conflict of interest exists (e.g., co-authorship history, institutional rivalry, personal relationship with authors).

Recommendation Categories

• Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject, accompanied by detailed written comments to both the editor and (anonymized) author.

Ethical Concerns

• Any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical violation must be reported immediately to the handling editor rather than addressed directly with the author.

Use of AI Tools in Review

• Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content into public AI/LLM tools. Any use of AI to assist in drafting review comments (e.g., improving clarity of feedback) must not compromise confidentiality and remains the reviewer's full responsibility.