International Journal of Advanced Computing and Mechanical Systems (IJACM) Peer Review Process & Policy
Ensuring academic integrity and quality through a transparent, rigorous review process
Overview
International Journal of Advanced Computing and Mechanical Systems (IJACM) follows a rigorous single-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and integrity of all published work. To maintain the highest standards of academic integrity, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed throughout the evaluation.
Review Stages & Quality Standards
Initial Submission & Editorial Screening
Every manuscript is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a Section Editor. We check for alignment with the journal's scope, adherence to formatting guidelines, and basic scientific soundness. Plagiarism detection software is used at this stage.
Expert Assignment
Manuscripts passing the initial screen are assigned to a minimum of two independent subject matter experts. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication record, and lack of conflicts of interest.
Reviewer Evaluation
Reviewers assess the technical merit, methodology, and clarity of the work, providing detailed feedback and recommendations.
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the reports and makes one of the following decisions: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject.
Final Verification
Revised manuscripts are often sent back to the original reviewers to ensure all concerns were adequately addressed before publication.
Reviewers are asked to provide feedback based on the following pillars:
Originality
Does the work provide a new contribution to the field of computing or mechanical systems?
Technical Rigor
Is the methodology sound and are the results supported by the data?
Clarity
Is the manuscript well-written, organized, and easy to follow?
Relevance
Does the research address current challenges or future trends in the industry?
Reviewer Ethics
Conflict of Interest
Reviewers must recuse themselves if they have a personal or professional relationship with the authors that could bias their judgment.
Confidentiality
Manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers may not share or use the data before publication.
Constructive Feedback
We encourage reviewers to be "critical but kind," providing specific suggestions to help authors improve their work regardless of the final decision.