Peer Review Policy
The review process for the International Journal of Computer Communication and Information Systems is designed to uphold the highest standards of academic rigor, integrity, and quality. Our peer review system is structured to provide authors with constructive feedback and uphold the journal's commitment to scholarly excellence.
Submission of Articles
Authors are required to submit their articles through our online submission system. Upon submission, each article is checked for formatting and adherence to our guidelines. Authors will receive a confirmation email acknowledging receipt of their submission along with a reference ID for tracking.
Initial Screening
Once submitted, the editorial team conducts an initial screening of the article to determine its suitability for the journal. This includes checks for relevance to the journal’s aim and scope, compliance with author guidelines, and originality of the content.
Articles that do not meet the initial criteria will be promptly rejected, and authors will be informed of the editorial decision.
Assignment of Reviewers
Articles passing the initial screening are assigned to two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area. The journal employs a double-blind review process, ensuring that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the review process.
Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate the article based on the following criteria:
- Originality: The contribution of new insights, methodologies, or findings to the field.
- Methodology: Rigor and appropriateness of the research design and methods used.
- Clarity: Organization, clarity of expression, and overall presentation of the article.
- Significance: The relevance and potential impact of the research findings on the field.
- Ethics: Compliance with ethical standards in research and publication.
Review Process Timeline
The review process typically takes 4 to 8 weeks. The editorial office ensures timely communication with authors regarding any updates or delays. If additional time is required, authors will be informed of the reasons for the delay.
Review Outcomes
After completing the review, reviewers will recommend one of the following outcomes:
Accept: The article is accepted for publication with no revisions.
Minor Revisions: The article requires minor changes. Authors will be given a specific timeframe (typically 1-2 weeks) to submit the revised version.
Major Revisions: The article requires substantial revisions; authors will be given detailed feedback and a longer timeframe for resubmission.
Reject: The article does not meet the standards for publication.
Author Revisions
Authors whose articles are given a "minor" or "major revisions" decision must address all reviewer comments in their revised article. Authors are encouraged to provide a response letter detailing how they have addressed each comment.
Final Decision
The revised article may undergo a second round of review by the original reviewers. In some cases, the editorial team may assign new reviewers based on the nature and scope of the revisions. The editorial team will make the final publication decision based on reviewer recommendations and the authors’ responses.
Publication Ethics
The journal adheres to strict ethical standards throughout the review process. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review assignment and ensure strict confidentiality throughout the review process. Any ethical concerns raised during the review process will be thoroughly investigated by the editorial team.
Communication with Authors
Authors will receive timely updates on the status of their articles at each stage of the review process, including acknowledgment of submission, reviewer assignment, and editorial decisions. Upon final acceptance, authors will be informed about the publication timeline, including the layout and proofreading stages.
