Reviewer Guidelines

Overview

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC) recognises peer reviewers as essential contributors to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Reviewers provide independent expert evaluations that assist editors in making informed publication decisions and help authors improve the quality, clarity, and impact of their research.

The journal follows a rigorous and ethical peer-review process to ensure that published articles meet high standards of originality, scientific validity, technical excellence, and research integrity.

All reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines and maintain professional, objective, and confidential conduct throughout the review process.

1. Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for providing an objective and constructive assessment of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers should:

  • Evaluate manuscripts based on academic merit, originality, relevance, and technical quality.
  • Provide detailed comments that help authors improve their work.
  • Identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring clarification.
  • Assess the validity of research methods, analysis, and conclusions.
  • Verify whether the manuscript contributes meaningful knowledge to the field.
  • Provide recommendations to support editorial decision-making.
  • Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Reviewers should not make decisions regarding acceptance or rejection independently; the final decision remains the responsibility of the journal's editors.

2. Reviewer Eligibility and Selection

Reviewers for the Journal of Smart Systems and Computing are selected based on:

  • Expertise and research experience in the relevant subject area.
  • Academic qualifications and professional background.
  • Publication record and scholarly contributions.
  • Previous peer-review experience.
  • Knowledge of research methodologies and ethical standards.

The editorial team selects reviewers who can provide competent and unbiased evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

3. Reviewer Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Not share manuscripts or review materials with others without permission from the editor.
  • Not discuss manuscript content with individuals outside the review process.
  • Not use unpublished information for personal research, professional advantage, or any other purpose.

Confidential information obtained during peer review must remain protected even after the review process is completed.

4. Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer should decline the invitation if:

  • They have a personal relationship with any author.
  • They have collaborated recently with the authors.
  • They have a professional or institutional conflict.
  • They have financial or competitive interests related to the manuscript.
  • They cannot provide an unbiased evaluation.

If a conflict of interest becomes apparent during review, the reviewer should immediately notify the editor.

5. Reviewer Acceptance of Review Invitations

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers should consider:

  • Whether the manuscript falls within their area of expertise.
  • Whether they can complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Whether they can provide an objective assessment.
  • Whether any conflict of interest exists.

Reviewers should decline assignments outside their expertise to ensure review quality.

6. Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

Reviewers should assess:

  • Novelty of the research.
  • Importance of the research problem.
  • Contribution to existing knowledge.
  • Advancement beyond current approaches.

Technical and Scientific Quality

Reviewers should evaluate:

  • Research methodology.
  • Theoretical foundation.
  • Experimental design.
  • Data analysis techniques.
  • Accuracy of results and conclusions.

Literature Review

Reviewers should consider:

  • Completeness and relevance of cited literature.
  • Awareness of current research developments.
  • Appropriate positioning of the research within existing studies.

Presentation and Organization

Reviewers should assess:

  • Clarity of writing.
  • Logical structure.
  • Quality of figures and tables.
  • Appropriateness of terminology.
  • Overall readability.

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers should check for:

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Unethical research practices.
  • Improper citations or attribution issues.

7. Reviewer Report Structure

A reviewer report should include:

General Comments

A summary of:

  • Overall assessment of the manuscript.
  • Research significance.
  • Major strengths and limitations.

Specific Comments

Detailed suggestions regarding:

  • Methodology improvements.
  • Technical corrections.
  • Additional explanations required.
  • Literature improvements.
  • Presentation enhancements.

Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

The recommendation should be supported by clear academic reasoning.

8. Constructive Review Practice

Reviewers should provide feedback that is:

  • Professional and respectful.
  • Specific and evidence-based.
  • Helpful to authors.
  • Focused on improving manuscript quality.

Reviewers should avoid:

  • Personal criticism of authors.
  • Unclear or unsupported statements.
  • Excessive demands unrelated to manuscript improvement.
  • Bias based on nationality, institution, gender, or personal opinion.

9. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must:

  • Maintain confidentiality.
  • Provide honest and unbiased evaluations.
  • Report suspected ethical concerns to editors.
  • Avoid plagiarism of manuscript ideas or content.
  • Not manipulate citations for personal benefit.
  • Not use privileged information obtained during review.

10. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools During Review

Reviewers should exercise caution when using Artificial Intelligence tools during peer review.

Reviewers must:

  • Protect manuscript confidentiality when using any digital tools.
  • Avoid uploading unpublished manuscript content into external AI systems.
  • Ensure that AI-assisted evaluations do not replace expert judgment.
  • Remain fully responsible for the accuracy and quality of review reports.

AI tools cannot be used in a manner that compromises confidentiality or research integrity.

11. Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are encouraged to complete reviews within the timeframe provided by the editorial office.

If additional time is required, reviewers should:

  • Inform the editor promptly.
  • Request an extension if possible.
  • Decline the review if they cannot complete it within a reasonable timeframe.

Timely reviews help ensure an efficient publication process.

12. Reviewer Recognition

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing values the contributions of reviewers.

The journal may recognise reviewer contributions through:

  • Certificates of appreciation.
  • Reviewer acknowledgments.
  • Editorial recognition programs.
  • Participation records where applicable.

13. Handling Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should immediately notify the editor if they identify possible issues such as:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Data manipulation.
  • Unethical research practices.
  • Misleading claims.
  • Conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should provide evidence or clear explanations to support their concerns.

14. Final Reviewer Statement

By accepting a review assignment for the Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC), reviewers agree to:

  • Conduct a fair and independent evaluation.
  • Maintain confidentiality.
  • Provide constructive scholarly feedback.
  • Support ethical and transparent publishing practices.

The journal appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining research excellence and advancing knowledge in smart systems and computing.

Commitment to Peer Review Excellence

The Journal of Smart Systems and Computing (JSSC) is committed to maintaining a robust and transparent peer-review system supported by dedicated reviewers worldwide. Through expert evaluation, ethical practices, and constructive feedback, reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the reliability, quality, and impact of published research