Peer-Review Policy
Applied Research in Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing (ARAIC)
Peer-Review Policy
- Objective:
The primary objective of the peer-review process is to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and clarity of manuscripts submitted to ARAIC. This process ensures that the research presented in the journal meets the highest standards in the fields of Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing.
- Double-Blind Review:
ARAIC operates on a double-blind review policy, meaning that neither the authors nor the reviewers know each other's identities. This ensures objectivity and eliminates potential bias.
- Initial Manuscript Assessment:
Before the review process, the editorial board assesses each manuscript for its relevance to the journal's scope and its adherence to the manuscript submission guidelines. Papers that do not meet the guidelines or are deemed outside the journal’s scope may be rejected without being reviewed.
- Selection of Reviewers:
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to at least two expert reviewers in the field. Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, reputation, and previous review history.
- Reviewer Guidelines:
Reviewers are requested to evaluate the manuscript based on:
- Originality and significance of the work.
- Technical accuracy and clarity.
- Relevance to ARAIC's scope.
- Quality and relevance of references.
- Any potential ethical concerns.
- Review Timeline:
Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within four weeks. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
- Review Feedback:
Upon receiving feedback from the reviewers, the editorial board classifies the paper as:
- Accept without revision: The paper is accepted as submitted.
- Minor revision: The paper will be accepted after minor changes.
- Major revision: The paper can be reconsidered after significant changes.
- Reject: The paper does not meet the standards of ARAIC.
- Author Revisions:
In cases where revisions are required, authors are given detailed feedback and a timeframe (typically 2-4 weeks) to submit their revised manuscript. Revised manuscripts received after this deadline may be treated as new submissions.
- Second Review:
Manuscripts that underwent major revisions might be sent for a second review by the original reviewers to ensure that all concerns were adequately addressed.
- Decision:
The final decision on the manuscript's acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-in-Chief, who takes into consideration the reviewers’ recommendations and the manuscript’s relevance to the journal.
- Appeals:
If authors disagree with the decision on their manuscript, they have the right to appeal within two weeks of receiving the decision. Appeals are considered by the editorial board and are decided upon case-by-case.
- Ethical Considerations:
Reviewers who suspect ethical misconduct (like plagiarism, data fabrication, etc.) should report it to the editorial board. If any misconduct is confirmed, the manuscript will be immediately rejected.
- Confidentiality:
All manuscripts received for review are confidential. Reviewers should not discuss the content with any third parties or use the content for their advantage.
- Conflict of Interest:
Reviewers with any potential conflict of interest regarding a particular manuscript should disclose this to the editorial board and recuse themselves from reviewing the manuscript.
---
This policy is subject to periodic reviews and updates to maintain its relevance and effectiveness in the ever-evolving fields of Artificial Intelligence and Cloud Computing.
