Part of CELT Journals Network  ·  ISSN: Pending  ·  CC BY 4.0 Open Access ✉ cjcai.editor@celtjournals.com
CELT Journals
CELT Journals
Computer Sciences & AI
CJCAI Open Access

Reviwers Guidlines

Reviwers Guidlines

Purpose: This page welcomes and guides peer reviewers. It outlines reviewer responsibilities, selection criteria, and recognition. Clearly defining reviewer policies meets COPE/Scopus expectations and helps maintain a high-quality review pool.

Content and Elements:

  • Role of Reviewers: State that reviewers are vital collaborators who help ensure rigor. They provide constructive feedback to improve submissions.
  • Qualifications and Selection: Mention that reviewers should have relevant expertise and a solid publication record. New reviewers are encouraged (possibly mention Publons/Crossref Reviewer Recognition).
  • Review Process: Outline how reviewers are invited (via editorial email), the expected timeline (typically 2–4 weeks), and how to accept/decline. Emphasize the importance of prompt responses and that CJCAI may reassign papers if reviewers cannot comply.
  • Confidentiality and Ethics: Require that reviewers treat the manuscript as confidential and do not use its content for personal gain. They must not disclose or copy the manuscript. Any conflicts (personal, financial, competitive) must be declared or cause rejection of the review task.
  • Review Content: Provide guidance on what to evaluate: originality, methodology, significance, clarity, references, and adherence to ethics. Encourage reviewers to be fair, unbiased, and courteous. A bullet list of review criteria (e.g. significance, soundness, clarity, referencing) can be given.
  • Review Report: Indicate that reviews should be structured (summary of the work, major strengths/weaknesses, minor points, recommendation). Optionally provide a sample review template or form. For example:
  • Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript’s aim and contributions.
  • Major Comments: Analysis of methodology, validity of results, novelty.
  • Minor Comments: Typos, references, figures, formatting.
  • Recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
  • Recognition: Mention any credit or acknowledgment (e.g. listing reviewers annually or certificate of review).

Recommended Wording:

  • “Reviewers are expected to provide thorough, objective assessments. Reviews should be submitted within 2–4 weeks of assignment If unable to meet this timeline or if a conflict of interest arises, please notify the editor promptly. Your evaluation should focus on the manuscript’s originality, technical correctness, and clarity. All interactions are double-blind; do not reveal your identity in the report or on the manuscript.”

Scopus/WoS Notes: Outlining reviewer duties and selection criteria meets COPE and Scopus expectations for transparency It also signals our commitment to quality and fairness in the review process.