International Journal of AI and Advanced Engineering

For Reviewers

Peer-Reviewed · Open Access · AI & Advanced Engineering

For Reviewers

International Journal of AI and Advanced Engineering

The International Journal of AI and Advanced Engineering uses a structured double-blind peer-review process for manuscripts submitted for publication. Manuscripts are evaluated by independent academic experts with relevant knowledge and expertise in artificial intelligence, advanced engineering, computational technologies, and related technical disciplines.

Reviewers play an important role in maintaining the academic quality, technical accuracy, research integrity, and ethical standards of the journal's published work.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

Evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, and impartially.
Provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based feedback.
Assess the technical accuracy, originality, methodology, and scientific contribution of the research.
Consider relevant academic, technical, and ethical standards.
Disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest.
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and all review-related information.
Accept review assignments only when they have the appropriate expertise and sufficient time to complete them.
Inform the editorial team promptly if they cannot complete a review within the agreed timeframe or provide a fair and impartial assessment.
Further information about reviewer ethics and professional conduct is provided in the Reviewer Conduct policy.

Double-Blind Peer Review

The International Journal of AI and Advanced Engineering follows a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential from each other, to the extent practicable.

Reviewers are selected according to the technical subject of the manuscript, their academic or professional expertise, availability, and any potential conflicts of interest. The journal normally seeks evaluations from two or more independent subject-matter reviewers for each manuscript.

A detailed description of the review process is available in the Peer Review Process policy.

Evaluation of Manuscripts

Reviewers should focus their assessments on the scientific and technical content of each manuscript. Their feedback should support informed editorial decisions and, where appropriate, help authors improve the clarity, reliability, reproducibility, and technical quality of their research.

Evaluation may consider the following criteria, where relevant to the manuscript:

Originality and significance of the research contribution.
Technical soundness of AI models, algorithms, engineering designs, and computational methods.
Appropriateness of research methodology, experiments, datasets, and validation procedures.
Accuracy and reproducibility of results.
Quality of analysis, interpretation, and comparison with existing research.
Responsible use of AI technologies, data, and computational resources.
Quality of technical presentation, references, and supporting materials.
The main criteria and editorial procedures are described in the Peer Review Process policy.

Review Invitations

The journal sends review invitations based on the manuscript's subject, the reviewer's expertise, availability, and relevant experience. Potential conflicts of interest are considered before an invitation is issued.

Reviewers should carefully assess whether the manuscript falls within their area of competence before accepting an assignment. If a reviewer cannot complete an assigned review within the agreed timeframe, they should inform the editorial team as early as possible.

Reviewer Information and Records

To manage peer-review assignments and related editorial activities, the journal may collect and maintain reviewer information, including:

Name and institutional affiliation.
Professional email address.
Academic or professional expertise.
ORCID or another researcher identifier, where provided.
Review reports and editorial comments.
Communication records relating to manuscript evaluations.

Peer-review records may be retained for editorial administration, quality assurance, publication ethics, and recordkeeping purposes, subject to applicable privacy and data-protection requirements.

Information about how reviewer data is collected and used is provided in the journal's Privacy Policy.

Concerns and Complaints

Concerns about reviewer conduct, potential conflicts of interest, breaches of confidentiality, or the integrity of the peer-review process may be reported to the editorial team.

Such concerns are considered in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals policy.

For further information about confidentiality, conflicts of interest, appropriate use of the review system, and professional responsibilities, please see the Reviewer Conduct policy.

This policy is informed by relevant guidance and principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), where applicable.
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)