Peer Review Process

Overview

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC) follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality scholarly research. The peer-review system is designed to evaluate the originality, scientific significance, technical quality, methodological rigor, and relevance of submitted manuscripts.

All manuscripts submitted to JSSC undergo a structured evaluation process conducted by qualified experts in the relevant research fields. The journal is committed to maintaining fairness, confidentiality, academic integrity, and timely communication throughout the review process.

Peer Review Objectives

The primary objectives of the peer-review process are to:

  • Ensure the publication of original and high-quality research.
  • Validate the accuracy, reliability, and significance of research findings.
  • Improve manuscript quality through constructive expert feedback.
  • Maintain ethical and professional standards in scholarly publishing.
  • Support authors in strengthening their research contributions.

Peer Review Model

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC) follows a double-anonymous peer-review process.

Under this model:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.
  • Reviewers provide independent and unbiased evaluations.
  • Editorial decisions are made based on scholarly merit and reviewer recommendations.

This approach helps minimize potential bias and promotes objective assessment of submitted manuscripts.

Manuscript Evaluation Process

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system (Open Journal Systems - OJS).

During submission, authors are required to provide:

  • Complete manuscript information
  • Author details and affiliations
  • ORCID identifiers (where available)
  • Declaration of originality
  • Conflict of interest disclosure
  • Funding information (if applicable)
  • Ethical approval information (where required)

Step 2: Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript meets basic requirements.

The screening process evaluates:

  • Alignment with the journal's aims and scope
  • Originality and research contribution
  • Manuscript completeness
  • Compliance with author guidelines
  • Ethical requirements
  • Similarity/plagiarism screening results

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum requirements may be returned to authors for correction or declined before external review.

Step 3: Assignment to Editor

Manuscripts passing the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate editor based on the research area and subject expertise.

The assigned editor evaluates:

  • Suitability of reviewers
  • Potential conflicts of interest
  • Overall review progress

Step 4: Reviewer Selection

The editor selects independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's research area.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications
  • Research experience
  • Subject expertise
  • Publication record
  • Previous reviewing experience

Typically, manuscripts are evaluated by two or more expert reviewers.

Step 5: Peer Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Scientific Quality

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Importance of the research contribution
  • Theoretical and practical significance

Methodology

  • Research design and methods
  • Technical accuracy
  • Experimental setup and validation
  • Data analysis and interpretation

Presentation Quality

  • Organization and clarity
  • Quality of figures, tables, and references
  • Logical consistency
  • Language and readability

Research Ethics

  • Proper citation and acknowledgment
  • Data integrity
  • Ethical compliance
  • Disclosure of conflicts of interest

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluation, reviewers provide comments and recommendations:

  • Accept – Manuscript is suitable for publication without major changes.
  • Minor Revision – Small corrections are required before acceptance.
  • Major Revision – Significant improvements are required, followed by further evaluation.
  • Reject – Manuscript does not meet the required quality or scope standards.

Step 6: Editorial Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor makes the final decision based on:

  • Reviewer reports
  • Manuscript quality
  • Author responses
  • Journal standards and policies

Possible decisions include:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision Required
  • Major Revision Required
  • Reject

The final editorial decision is communicated to authors with appropriate feedback.

Step 7: Revision and Final Evaluation

For revised manuscripts:

  • Authors must address reviewer comments carefully.
  • A detailed response letter explaining changes is encouraged.
  • Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further assessment when necessary.

The editor makes the final publication decision after evaluating the revised submission.

Step 8: Production and Publication

After acceptance:

  • Manuscripts undergo editorial processing.
  • Language, formatting, and technical checks are completed.
  • Articles are prepared for online publication.
  • Published articles receive appropriate metadata and persistent identification.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Ethics

Reviewers must:

  • Treat manuscripts as confidential documents.
  • Avoid sharing manuscript content with others.
  • Provide objective and constructive feedback.
  • Declare conflicts of interest.
  • Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage.

Review Timeline

JSSC aims to provide an efficient and timely review process while maintaining rigorous academic standards.

The approximate review timeline is:

  • Initial editorial screening: 1–2 weeks
  • External peer review: 3–6 weeks
  • Editorial decision after review: 1–2 weeks
  • Revision evaluation: Depends on author response time and revision complexity

Actual timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and revision requirements.

Appeals and Reconsideration

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a formal explanation with supporting academic justification.

Appeals are reviewed by the editorial team to ensure that decisions were made fairly and according to journal policies.

Commitment to Quality and Integrity

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review system that supports excellence in scholarly communication.

Through independent expert evaluation, ethical editorial practices, and continuous improvement, JSSC aims to provide a trusted international platform for researchers contributing to advances in smart systems and computing.