Peer Review Process

 The International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation (IJAIDI) applies a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to all research manuscripts considered for publication. Under this model, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors throughout the review process.

The purpose of peer review is to assess the originality, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, clarity, relevance, and contribution of each manuscript before a final publication decision is made.

1. Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal’s online submission system. Each submission must comply with the journal’s aims and scope, author guidelines, ethical policies, formatting requirements, and publication standards.

Authors are responsible for ensuring that the manuscript has been properly anonymized before submission. Names, affiliations, acknowledgements, identifying references, and other information that may reveal the authors’ identities should be removed from the blinded manuscript file.

2. Administrative and Technical Check

Following submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative and technical review to confirm that:

  • All required submission files have been provided.
  • The manuscript follows the journal’s formatting requirements.
  • Author information and declarations are complete.
  • Tables, figures, references, and supplementary files are properly presented.
  • Ethical approval and informed-consent statements are included where applicable.
  • Funding information and conflicts of interest have been disclosed.
  • The manuscript has been prepared for double-blind review.

Submissions that do not meet the basic technical requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before editorial assessment.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor conducts an initial screening to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Originality and potential scholarly contribution.
  • Methodological and scientific quality.
  • Clarity of presentation and language.
  • Compliance with publication ethics.
  • Adequacy of the research problem, objectives, and structure.
  • Overall suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected at this stage without external review if it is outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains serious methodological weaknesses, does not comply with ethical requirements, or is unsuitable for publication in its submitted form.

This preliminary decision is commonly referred to as a desk rejection.

4. Similarity and Integrity Screening

The journal may screen submitted manuscripts using similarity-detection software and other research-integrity checks.

Similarity reports are assessed by the editorial team and are not interpreted solely on the basis of a numerical percentage. The nature, source, context, and extent of textual overlap are considered.

Manuscripts involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated references, manipulated data, undisclosed reuse of previously published material, or other forms of research misconduct may be rejected or investigated according to the journal’s publication ethics policy.

5. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript’s subject area.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

  • Relevant academic qualifications and subject expertise.
  • Research and publication experience.
  • Independence from the authors and their institutions.
  • Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest.
  • Ability to provide a timely, objective, and constructive assessment.
  • Previous reviewing performance, where applicable.

The editor may invite additional reviewers when the evaluations are conflicting, incomplete, or require expertise from different disciplines.

Reviewer suggestions provided by authors may be considered, but the journal is under no obligation to invite the suggested individuals. The editorial office independently verifies reviewer identities and suitability.

6. Double-Blind Review

IJAIDI applies double-blind peer review. Authors and reviewers must not attempt to discover or disclose each other’s identities during the review process.

Editors take reasonable measures to remove identifying information from the files sent to reviewers. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when an author’s identity may be inferred from the topic, citations, datasets, institutional context, preprints, or previous related publications.

Authors should avoid unnecessary self-identifying language and should cite their previous work in a neutral manner.

7. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Clarity of the research problem and objectives.
  • Appropriateness of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
  • Soundness and transparency of the methodology.
  • Quality and adequacy of the data.
  • Validity of the analysis and interpretation.
  • Reproducibility of the methods, where applicable.
  • Accuracy and clarity of tables, figures, models, and algorithms.
  • Relationship between the findings and the conclusions.
  • Appropriate acknowledgment of limitations.
  • Relevance, accuracy, and currency of references.
  • Ethical compliance and responsible research conduct.
  • Quality, organization, and clarity of presentation.
  • Contribution to artificial intelligence, digital innovation, or related applications.

For studies involving artificial intelligence or computational systems, reviewers may also assess dataset quality, model selection, validation methods, performance metrics, reproducibility, explainability, bias, privacy, security, and responsible use.

8. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers must provide objective, constructive, evidence-based, and respectful reports. Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory comments, and unsupported allegations are not permitted.

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts and associated files as confidential.
  • Review only manuscripts within their area of expertise.
  • Disclose any conflict of interest before accepting the assignment.
  • Decline the review when impartiality cannot be maintained.
  • Complete the review within the agreed period.
  • Identify relevant work that has not been appropriately cited.
  • Report suspected plagiarism, duplication, fabrication, manipulation, or unethical research to the editor.
  • Avoid requesting unnecessary citations to their own publications.
  • Not use unpublished material for personal, academic, institutional, or commercial advantage.
  • Not contact authors directly concerning the manuscript.
  • Not share the manuscript with another person without prior editorial permission.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts, data, figures, or supplementary materials to public or external artificial-intelligence systems when this may compromise confidentiality, intellectual property, privacy, or data security.

9. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, supporting files, and unpublished information are treated as confidential.

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose or use information obtained during the review process except for the legitimate purposes of manuscript evaluation and editorial decision-making.

10. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, academic, or intellectual interests that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • Recent collaboration with an author.
  • Employment at the same institution.
  • Supervisory or student relationships.
  • Personal or family relationships.
  • Direct professional competition.
  • Financial interests connected to the research.
  • Strong personal or academic disputes.
  • Participation in the research under review.

When a conflict exists, the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified editor or reviewer.

11. Review Period

Reviewers are normally requested to submit their reports within two to four weeks of accepting the invitation.

The actual review period may vary depending on the manuscript’s complexity, reviewer availability, the need for additional expertise, and the extent of revisions required.

The journal seeks to conduct peer review efficiently without compromising the quality, independence, or integrity of the evaluation.

12. Reviewer Recommendations

Following the evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
  • Minor Revision: Limited amendments are required before the manuscript can be accepted.
  • Major Revision: Substantial amendments, additional analysis, clarification, or restructuring are required.
  • Resubmit for Review: The revised manuscript requires another full round of external evaluation.
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or scope-related concerns.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

13. Editorial Decision

The editor considers the reviewer reports, the manuscript’s academic quality, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and the authors’ responses before making a decision.

The editor is not required to follow the reviewers’ recommendations when there are justified academic, ethical, or procedural reasons to reach a different decision.

When reviewer reports conflict substantially, the editor may:

  • Conduct an independent assessment.
  • Request clarification from the reviewers.
  • Invite an additional reviewer.
  • Return the manuscript for further revision.
  • Reject the manuscript when the concerns cannot be resolved.

The possible editorial decisions are:

  • Accept.
  • Accept subject to minor revisions.
  • Major revisions required.
  • Resubmit for further review.
  • Reject.

14. Revision by Authors

When revisions are requested, authors must submit:

  • A revised and anonymized manuscript.
  • A detailed point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment.
  • A clear explanation of all changes made.
  • A scholarly justification for any recommendation that was not followed.

Revisions should be clearly identified using tracked changes, highlighting, or another method requested by the journal.

Authors should respond respectfully and substantively. A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the extent of the changes.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

15. Subsequent Review Rounds

A manuscript may undergo more than one round of review when necessary.

The journal does not impose a predetermined maximum number of review rounds. However, the editor may reject a manuscript when the authors repeatedly fail to address essential comments, when major scientific concerns remain unresolved, or when the revisions substantially alter the manuscript without adequate justification.

16. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is accepted only after:

  • All required revisions have been satisfactorily completed.
  • Scientific and methodological concerns have been resolved.
  • Ethical and integrity requirements have been met.
  • The final manuscript complies with the journal’s technical and formatting requirements.
  • The responsible editor has issued a formal acceptance decision.

Acceptance is based exclusively on scholarly merit and compliance with journal policies. Payment of publication fees, where applicable, does not influence peer review or guarantee acceptance.

17. Copyediting and Production

After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production process, which may include:

  • Language and technical editing.
  • Reference verification.
  • Formatting and typesetting.
  • Metadata preparation.
  • DOI registration, where applicable.
  • Author proof review.
  • Online publication.

Copyediting is intended to improve accuracy, consistency, readability, and journal style. It must not alter the authors’ scientific conclusions without consultation.

Authors are responsible for carefully reviewing the final proofs and reporting production errors within the specified period.

18. Editorial Submissions

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board, editors, or individuals affiliated with the publisher are subject to the same standards of peer review and editorial evaluation as other submissions.

Such manuscripts are assigned to an independent editor who has no conflict of interest. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential reviewer identities, or influence the editorial decision.

19. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned and evidence-based request to the editorial office.

An appeal must:

  • Identify the manuscript and the decision being challenged.
  • Explain the scientific or procedural basis of the appeal.
  • Respond specifically to the relevant reviewer or editor comments.
  • Provide supporting evidence where appropriate.
  • Avoid personal or unsupported allegations.

Appeals are evaluated independently where possible. An appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or acceptance, and the outcome of the formal appeal process is ordinarily final.

20. Ethical Concerns During Review

When suspected misconduct is identified during peer review, the editorial process may be suspended while the matter is examined.

The journal may request:

  • Original datasets.
  • Source code or computational outputs.
  • Ethics-committee approval.
  • Informed-consent documentation.
  • Original images or figures.
  • Evidence of permission or copyright ownership.
  • Clarification regarding authorship or competing interests.

Depending on the findings, the journal may continue the review, reject the manuscript, contact the relevant institution, or take another appropriate action under its publication ethics policy.

21. Peer-Review Records

The journal maintains appropriate editorial records of submissions, reviewer invitations, reports, author responses, decisions, and relevant correspondence.

These records are retained securely and accessed only by authorized personnel, subject to applicable legal, privacy, ethical, and institutional requirements.

22. Independence of Editorial Decisions

Editorial decisions are based on originality, scholarly quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and contribution to knowledge.

Decisions are not influenced by:

  • Authors’ nationality or geographic location.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Gender, religion, ethnicity, or political views.
  • Personal relationships.
  • Sponsorship or advertising.
  • Payment or non-payment of publication fees.
  • Institutional or commercial pressure.

The publisher respects the journal’s editorial independence and does not interfere with decisions concerning individual manuscripts.