Purpose: A dedicated Peer Review page (or section) explains exactly how submissions are evaluated. Transparency here is key for Scopus: the journal must state the type of peer review and process, including timeframes
Process Overview: CJCAI adopts a double-blind peer review process by default All submissions are first checked by editors for fit and ethical compliance. If suitable, manuscripts are sent to at least two independent reviewers. Reviews are completed typically in 2–4 weeks. Based on the reports, the Editor makes one of four decisions: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Authors are notified promptly and given instructions for revisions.
Steps: A numbered list or bullets can outline stages: 1. Initial Editorial Screening (2–5 days): Check scope, originality, completeness. Manuscripts failing basic criteria are returned with feedback 2. Reviewer Assignment: Two or more experts are selected based on expertise, lack of conflicts, and availability. 3. Review: Reviewers evaluate scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and ethical compliance. 4. Editorial Decision: Editor synthesizes reports and decides. Possible outcomes are communicated with annotated reviewer comments. 5. Revisions: Authors normally have ~2 weeks to submit revised manuscripts addressing each comment. 6. Final Decision and Publication: After satisfactory revision, papers are accepted, typeset, and assigned a DOI. An acceptance letter is sent upon final acceptance.
Mermaid Diagram: We illustrate this process below. The flowchart shows each stage from submission to publication:
Figure: Peer-review and publication workflow (double-blind).
graph LR
A[Submit Manuscript] –> B[Initial Editorial Screening]
B –> C[Assign to Reviewers]
C –> D[Expert Reviews (2-4 weeks)]
D –> E[Editorial Decision]
E –> F{Decision}
F –>|Revise & Resubmit| G[Revised Manuscript]
F –>|Accept| H[Acceptance]
F –>|Reject| I[Rejection]
G –> D
Review Models (Table): We compare common models:
| Review Model | Description | Pros | Cons |
| Single-Blind | Reviewers know authors’ identities; authors do not know reviewers. | Reviewers can consider author’s reputation/expertise. | Potential for reviewer bias; less anonymity for authors. |
| Double-Blind | Both reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other. | Reduces bias; fairer for authors (e.g. early-career, marginalized). | Reviewers may guess identities (especially in small fields); extra effort to anonymize. |
| Open Review | Author and reviewer identities are disclosed. Some journals publish reviews with names. | Full transparency; reviewers accountable; credit to reviewers. | May discourage candid feedback; cultural barriers in CS. |
CJCAI uses double-blind review to maximize impartiality.
Timelines: We aim for prompt processing. A sample editorial timeline (submission to decision) is shown below:
gantt
title Editorial Process Timeline
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
section Editorial Process
Submission :done, s1, 2026-05-01, 2d
Screening :active, s2, after s1, 3d
Peer Review : s3, after s2, 28d
Revisions : s4, after s3, 14d
Final Decision : s5, after s4, 3d
Publication : s6, after s5, 7d
Reviewer Criteria: Reviewers are selected for expertise (typically a PhD or equivalent, with relevant publications). They must have no conflict of interest. A reviewer form or checklist (for internal use) may guide them on evaluating novelty, validity, and clarity. All communications and reports are confidential; reviewers must not share manuscripts.
Appeals: Authors unhappy with a decision can submit an appeal within 30 days, with substantive grounds. A new editorial member will re-assess the case ensuring fairness.
Scopus/WoS Notes: Indexers require that the peer review process is clearly described on the journal’s site. By publishing our detailed workflow, we demonstrate compliance with best practices. All processes uphold confidentiality and integrity, aligning with COPE’s guidelines.