Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers of the International Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation (IJAIDI) are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely evaluations in accordance with internationally recognized standards of scholarly peer review.

Reviewer Eligibility

Applicants wishing to join the journal’s reviewer team should:

  • Hold a Ph.D. degree in a field relevant to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Have an appropriate academic or professional research record.
  • Possess relevant publications in artificial intelligence, digital innovation, computer science, engineering, or related interdisciplinary fields.
  • Demonstrate sufficient expertise to evaluate research methodology, analysis, results, and scholarly contribution.
  • Have previous peer-review experience where possible.
  • Be able to provide clear, evidence-based, and professional reviewer comments.

The journal reserves the right to approve reviewer applications based on academic qualifications, specialization, publication record, reviewing experience, and current editorial needs.

Reviewer Registration

Researchers interested in joining the reviewer team should create an account through the journal’s registration page and complete their profile in English.

The reviewer profile should include:

  • Full name.
  • Institutional affiliation.
  • Academic title.
  • Reviewing interests and areas of specialization.
  • ORCID iD.
  • Link to Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Scopus, or another academic profile.
  • Curriculum vitae, where requested.
  • Relevant publication and peer-review experience.

Incomplete profile information may delay or prevent reviewer assignment and the issuance of reviewer certificates.

Before Accepting a Review

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers should consider:

  • Expertise: The manuscript should fall within their field of specialization.
  • Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must disclose any financial, personal, institutional, professional, or academic conflict.
  • Availability: Reviewers should ensure that they can complete the review within the assigned deadline.
  • Objectivity: Reviewers must decline the invitation if they cannot provide an independent and unbiased assessment.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the report on time, the editorial office should be notified promptly.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers should assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope.
  • Originality and scholarly contribution.
  • Clarity of the research problem, objectives, and questions.
  • Adequacy of the theoretical or conceptual framework.
  • Appropriateness of the research methodology.
  • Quality, sufficiency, and reliability of the data.
  • Accuracy and transparency of the analysis.
  • Validity of the results and conclusions.
  • Ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable.
  • Clarity and accuracy of tables, figures, models, and algorithms.
  • Quality of the discussion and comparison with previous studies.
  • Recognition of research limitations.
  • Accuracy, relevance, and currency of citations and references.
  • Consistency between the title, abstract, methods, results, and conclusion.
  • Quality and clarity of the academic language.

For artificial-intelligence and machine-learning studies, reviewers should also consider:

  • Dataset quality and representativeness.
  • Training, validation, and testing procedures.
  • Risk of data leakage.
  • Appropriateness of performance metrics.
  • Comparison with relevant baseline models.
  • Reproducibility of methods.
  • Bias, fairness, explainability, privacy, and security.
  • Whether claims are supported by the reported evidence.

Preparing the Review Report

Reviewer reports should normally include:

  1. Brief Summary of the Manuscript
  2. Major Comments
  3. Minor Comments
  4. Confidential Comments to the Editor, where necessary
  5. Final Recommendation

Comments should be:

  • Clear and specific.
  • Constructive and actionable.
  • Supported by scientific reasoning.
  • Respectful and professionally written.
  • Focused on the manuscript rather than the authors.

Reviewers should provide comments that help authors improve the manuscript, even when rejection is recommended.

Personal criticism, hostile language, discriminatory comments, and unsupported allegations are not permitted.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may select one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Resubmit for Review
  • Reject
  • Unable to Review

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible editor.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, and editorial communications are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share, copy, distribute, or discuss the manuscript with unauthorized persons.
  • Contact the authors directly.
  • Use unpublished information for personal, academic, institutional, or commercial benefit.
  • Delegate the review to another person without prior editorial permission.
  • Upload the manuscript or unpublished data to external artificial-intelligence systems.

If consultation with another specialist is necessary, prior approval must be obtained from the editor, and the contributor must be identified confidentially to the editorial office.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must decline a manuscript when they:

  • Have a financial or personal interest related to the research.
  • Have recently collaborated with an author.
  • Work at the same institution as an author.
  • Have a supervisory, student, family, or close professional relationship with an author.
  • Have previously participated in the manuscript or research.
  • Have a dispute or competing interest that may affect impartiality.
  • Cannot provide an objective and independent review.

When uncertain, reviewers should disclose the situation to the editor before accepting the assignment.

Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor of suspected:

  • Plagiarism or inappropriate text reuse.
  • Duplicate or redundant publication.
  • Fabricated or falsified data.
  • Manipulated images, figures, or statistical results.
  • Unethical research involving humans, animals, or sensitive data.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Inappropriate authorship.
  • Citation manipulation.
  • Fabricated references.
  • Manipulation of the peer-review process.

Reviewers should not investigate or contact the authors directly.

Citation Requests

Reviewers may recommend additional references only when they are directly relevant and scientifically necessary.

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to:

  • Their own publications.
  • The journal’s publications.
  • Articles intended solely to increase citation counts.

Submission of the Review

All review reports must be submitted through the journal’s online submission system before the assigned deadline.

Comments intended for the authors should not reveal the reviewer’s identity. Any confidential information intended only for the editor must be entered in the designated confidential section.

Reviewer Recognition

Reviewers who complete satisfactory reports may receive an official reviewer certificate from the journal.

The journal may also recognize active reviewers through appropriate academic or editorial opportunities, subject to performance, contribution, and the journal’s approved policies.

Final Statement

By accepting a review invitation, the reviewer agrees to comply with the journal’s confidentiality, conflict-of-interest, publication-ethics, and peer-review policies.