Editorial and Peer Review Process

Journal of Data Intelligent System and Science adheres to a double-blind peer review process to ensure impartiality, fairness, and the highest academic integrity in the evaluation of submitted manuscripts. In this process, both the identity of the author(s) and the reviewers remain anonymous to each other, ensuring that the evaluation is based solely on the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, innovation, and relevance to the field.

Manuscript Submission

  1. Initial Submission
    Authors must submit their manuscripts through the journal's online submission system. Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope, aims, and submission guidelines. Manuscripts that do not meet the initial criteria will be returned to the authors for revision or rejection without peer review.
  2. Assessment for Relevance and Quality
    In this phase, the editorial team evaluates the overall quality of the manuscript, its originality, and its contribution to the field. If a manuscript is deemed appropriate for further review, it will proceed to the peer review process. This ensures that only relevant and high-quality manuscripts are sent for peer evaluation.

Review Process

  1. Assignment of Reviewers
    Once the manuscript passes the initial assessment, it is assigned to two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the subject area of the manuscript. These reviewers are selected based on their expertise, experience, and impartiality. Reviewers are typically scholars, researchers, or practitioners with a background in the topic of the manuscript.
  2. Criteria for Evaluation
    Reviewers assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:
    • Originality: The manuscript should present new and innovative research or ideas that contribute to the field.
    • Methodological Rigor: The research methodology should be appropriate, clear, and well-executed.
    • Theoretical Depth: The manuscript should engage with relevant theories and frameworks, demonstrating a solid understanding of the academic context.
    • Clarity of Writing: The manuscript should be well-written, logically structured, and easy to understand.
    • Relevance to the Journal’s Scope: The manuscript should align with the journal’s focus on policy, society, law, governance, social change, humanities, culture, communication, and development.
  3. Feedback to Authors
    After the peer review process, the reviewers provide detailed feedback on the manuscript. The feedback may include:
    • Suggestions for improving the manuscript’s clarity, argumentation, or presentation.
    • Recommendations for improving the research design, methodology, or theoretical framework.
    • Critical comments on the relevance and contribution of the research to the field.
    • Requests for additional references, data, or clarification on specific points.

Based on the feedback, the author(s) may be asked to revise the manuscript to address the reviewers’ comments. Revisions could range from minor changes to more substantial adjustments.

Revisions and Resubmission

  1. Revision Process
    After receiving the reviewers' comments, authors must revise the manuscript accordingly. The revised manuscript should include:
    • A response letter that outlines how each reviewer’s comments have been addressed. Authors must explain the changes made in the manuscript and provide justifications for any suggestions that were not incorporated.
    • An updated manuscript that reflects the changes requested by the reviewers, ensuring that the document meets the journal’s standards.

Revised manuscripts are then resubmitted through the online submission system, where the editorial team and reviewers will assess whether the revisions have adequately addressed the feedback provided.

  1. Multiple Rounds of Review
    In some cases, the manuscript may go through multiple rounds of revision and peer review. The manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers to ensure that the revisions meet their expectations and that the manuscript improves in quality.

Final Decision

  1. Decision Making
    The final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Section Editor, based on the reviewers' recommendations. The decision is made considering the manuscript’s academic quality, originality, relevance, and overall contribution to the journal’s scope.
  2. Possible Outcomes
    The final decision could result in one of the following outcomes:
    • Accepted without revisions: The manuscript is accepted as is, without any further revisions.
    • Accepted with minor revisions: The manuscript is generally acceptable but requires small adjustments (e.g., language improvements, clarification of certain points).
    • Accepted with major revisions: The manuscript requires substantial changes or further clarification in several areas, including methodology, data, or theoretical contributions.
    • Rejected: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form due to major issues, such as lack of originality, methodological flaws, or insufficient contribution to the field.
  3. Notification of Decision
    Authors will be notified of the editorial decision via email. If the manuscript is accepted, the email will provide details regarding the next steps, including formatting instructions and publication timelines. If revisions are requested, the email will contain specific comments from the reviewers and a deadline for resubmission.
  4. Appeals Process
    If authors disagree with the editorial decision, they may submit an appeal. The appeal must include a clear explanation of the reasons for challenging the decision and any supporting evidence. Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, and a final decision will be made in accordance with the journal’s policies.

Confidentiality and Ethics

  1. Confidentiality of the Review Process
    All reviewers, editors, and authors are required to maintain confidentiality throughout the editorial and review process. Manuscripts are considered confidential documents and should not be disclosed, shared, or used for personal or professional gain.
  2. Ethical Considerations in Review
    Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. They are required to disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their judgment. Any unethical behavior, such as bias, favoritism, or inappropriate influence, will be addressed by the editorial team in accordance with the journal’s ethics policy.