Peer Review Process

The Journal of Intelligent Systems and Applied Sciences (JISAS) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and scholarly contribution of all published articles.

All submitted manuscripts are reviewed in accordance with established standards of academic publishing and the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope

  • Originality and scholarly significance

  • Methodological soundness and clarity

  • Compliance with the journal’s submission requirements

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be returned to the authors without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are subject to double-blind peer review, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed.

Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

  • Novelty and contribution to intelligent systems or applied computational sciences

  • Technical correctness and methodological rigor

  • Appropriateness and robustness of experimental design and evaluation

  • Clarity of presentation and organization

  • Relevance to interdisciplinary or real-world contexts, where applicable

3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, publication record, and experience.

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews

  • Declare any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting a review

  • Treat all manuscripts and review materials as confidential

4. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor will make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Authors receiving revision decisions are expected to respond to reviewer comments in a point-by-point rebuttal.

5. Revisions and Re-Review

Revised manuscripts are evaluated to determine whether reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed.

  • Minor revisions may be assessed by the handling editor

  • Major revisions may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation

Multiple rounds of review may be conducted when necessary to ensure quality.

6. Ethical Oversight

The journal takes ethical concerns seriously. Manuscripts may be rejected, corrected, or retracted if issues such as plagiarism, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or unethical research practices are identified at any stage of the review process.

7. Confidentiality and Transparency

All aspects of the peer review process are conducted confidentially.

While reviewer identities are not disclosed, JISAS is committed to transparency in editorial decision-making and aims to provide authors with clear and constructive feedback.

8. Appeals

Authors who believe that a decision was based on a factual error or misunderstanding may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals will be considered carefully, and the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.