Editorial Policies

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Progress in Artificial Intelligence follows a double-blind peer-review system. In this process, the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review period. This approach ensures fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

All submitted manuscripts are evaluated solely on the basis of their academic quality, originality, relevance, and clarity.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality of the journal. Reviewers are expected to carefully evaluate manuscripts within their area of expertise and provide honest, balanced, and constructive feedback.

Reviewer comments should assist authors in improving their work, regardless of whether the manuscript is recommended for publication. Reviewers are encouraged to highlight both strengths and weaknesses and to suggest specific improvements where necessary.

Before Accepting a Review

Subject Expertise

If the manuscript does not sufficiently match the reviewer’s area of expertise, the review request should be declined through the reviewer profile or by informing the editor.

Availability

Reviews are normally expected to be completed within one week. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editor as early as possible. Reviewers may also suggest an alternative expert where appropriate.

Conflict of Interest

Any potential academic, financial, or personal conflict of interest must be disclosed to the editorial office before starting the review. Declaring a conflict does not automatically disqualify a reviewer; however, transparency is mandatory.

---

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to assess manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Originality and Contribution

• Does the manuscript present new ideas or meaningful insights?
• Does it contribute to existing knowledge or practice?
• Is the research question relevant and significant within the field?

Relevance to Journal Scope

• Is the manuscript aligned with the aims and scope of the Journal of Progress in Artificial Intelligence?

Structure and Presentation

• Is the manuscript logically organized?
• Does the title accurately reflect the content?
• Does the abstract clearly summarize the study?

Methodology

• Are the methods appropriate and clearly described?
• Is sufficient detail provided to allow replication?
• Are data collection and analysis methods suitable?

Results and Discussion

• Are results presented clearly and logically?
• Are statistical analyses accurate and appropriate?
• Do the discussion and conclusions reflect the findings without exaggeration?

Tables, Figures, and Graphics

• Do tables and figures add value to the manuscript?
• Are they accurate, readable, and properly labeled?

Language and Clarity

• Is the manuscript clear and understandable?
• If language quality affects clarity, reviewers should inform the editor rather than directly editing the manuscript.

---

Reviewer Comments

• Constructive and specific
• Polite and professional, even when critical
• Helpful in improving the manuscript

Reviewers may also submit confidential comments for the editor only.

Review Recommendations

At the conclusion of the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revisions
• Major Revisions
• Reject

The final decision is made by the editor after considering all reviewer reports.

---

Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

• Confidentiality: Manuscripts must not be shared or discussed with others.
• Objectivity: Reviews must be unbiased and evidence-based.
• Acknowledgment of Sources: Reviewers should inform the editor of missing or improperly cited references.
• Conflict of Interest: Any conflicts must be disclosed, and unpublished information must not be used for personal benefit.