Review and Editor Guidelines

Review Deadline

In order to expedite review process, reviewers are asked to complete the review within four weeks of receipt of the manuscript. Reminders of deadlines will be sent to the reviewers from the Publications Office in pursuit of this deadline.

Review Criteria

For a recommendation of acceptance for publication, the following two criteria are necessary:
ORIGINALITY (innovation or novelty) and PRESENTATION (a well written manuscript within the scope of IJACCS).Reviewers are asked to evaluate both the quality of the technical contribution and the quality of the presentation. In addition, the manuscript must be new and previously unpublished with interesting contributions to IJACCS convergence. It is rather important for reviewers to evaluate the manuscripts whether the contributions are interesting and potentially relevant to a fundamental problem/question in convergence of information and communication technology or some related application domains.

Review Scoring

When making a final recommendation on a manuscript, the Reviewers are asked to choose one of the following options shown below:
  • Accept - An accept decision means that an editor is accepting the paper with no further modifications. The paper will not be seen again by the editor or by the reviewers. The paper will be published online after completion of language and copy editing.

  • Reject - The manuscript is not suitable for the IJACCS publication.

  • Reject and Resubmit - Reject and resubmit means that the editor or reviewers have seen some merit in the study, but it is not publishable in its current form. It would require extensive revision, in most cases, adding new experiments or redoing the data analysis. Therefore, resubmission is recommended with major revision.
Please provide detailed comments in the review form that will help the authors amend the manuscript for publication, especially for a score of reject, they will help the author understand why the manuscript is unacceptable for publication. They are also important to the Associate Editor in making a final decision for the manuscript. Typically a review consists of a brief summary of the paper followed by descriptions about its contributions; a discussion of the novelty and importance of these contributions; a list of major comments; and finally a list of minor comments and corrections.

How to Structure Your Report

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

Summary
  • Give positive feedback first.
  • Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
  • Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
  • Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
  • Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
Major Issues
  • Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
  • Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
  • Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
  • If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
  • Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
  • Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section
Minor Issues
  • Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
  • Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
  • Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
  • Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labeled? If not, say which are not
The Recommendation
  • Give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation.
  • Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated.
  • You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Deadlines for Regular Review

Review Process Deadlines
Selection of reviewers 1 week
Review process4 weeks
Editor's recommendation 1 week

Article Informations




Information for Authors




Journal Services




Abstracted/Indexed in