Peer Review Processes

Introduction
The International Journal of Data Science (IJoDS) is committed to a rigorous and transparent peer review process, which is fundamental to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. This policy details our peer review model, the responsibilities of reviewers and editors, and how we manage the process.

Description
Peer review is the critical assessment of manuscripts submitted to journals by experts who are not part of the editorial staff. IJoDS employs a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are concealed from each other to ensure impartiality. All peer review processes are transparently described and well-managed.

The Policy

  • Peer Review Model: IJoDS uses a double-blind peer review model for all research articles and other substantive submissions. Some content, such as editorials or book reviews, may not undergo external peer review but will be assessed internally by the editorial team. This will be clearly indicated.
  • Purpose of Peer Review: Peer review aims to assess the manuscript's originality, scientific rigor, clarity, significance to the field of data science, and suitability for publication in IJoDS.
  • Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript's subject area, experience, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editors have the option to consider author-suggested reviewers, but they are not required to do so, and they can also respect requests to exclude specific individuals.
  • Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers must fulfill the following expectations:
    • Provide timely, constructive, and unbiased feedback.
    • Maintain confidentiality of the manuscript and review process.
    • Declare any potential conflicts of interest.
    • Alert the editor to any suspected ethical misconduct (e.g., plagiarism, data fabrication).
  • Editorial Responsibilities: Editors are responsible for:
    • Editors are responsible for making the final decision on manuscript acceptance or rejection, taking into account the comments from reviewers, their own assessment, and the scope and standards of the journal.
    • Ensuring a fair, timely, and confidential peer review process.
    • Mediating all interactions between reviewers and authors.
  • Transparency: IJoDS provides clear information about its peer review process on its website (https://ijods.org/). This includes expected turnaround times, criteria for review, and how decisions are made.
  • Training and Guidance: IJoDS provides guidance to its reviewers and editors on best practices in peer review.
  • Confidentiality: All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others without prior permission from the editor.
  • Appeals: Authors can appeal editorial decisions if they believe there has been a significant misunderstanding or error in the review process (see Complaints and Appeals policy).

Implementation of the Policy

  • Submission Process: Manuscripts are submitted through the IJoDS online submission system (OJS).
  • Initial Screening: The Editor-in-Chief or an assigned Associate Editor performs an initial check for suitability, scope, adherence to journal guidelines, and potential plagiarism. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external peer review.
  • Reviewer Assignment: If deemed suitable, the manuscript is assigned to at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. The process is double-blind.
  • Review Reports: Reviewers submit their reports via the online system, typically including comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor, along with a recommendation. Reviews should be constructive and professional.
  • Decision-Making: The responsible editor considers the reviewer reports, their own assessment, and IJoDS policies to make a decision (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, reject). Authors receive anonymized reviewer comments.
  • Revisions: Should we request revisions, we expect authors to address all comments and resubmit within a specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers.
  • Timeliness: IJoDS aims to provide authors with a first decision within 8-12 weeks of submission, though the actual time frame may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity. We will inform authors of any significant delays.
  • Reviewer Recognition: IJoDS values the contributions of its reviewers and may offer formal acknowledgments, such as publishing an annual list of reviewers (with their consent) or collaborating with services like Publons.
  • Handling Conflicts of Interest: Clear processes are in place for handling conflicts of interest for reviewers and editors, as detailed in the Conflicts of Interest policy.
  • Training Materials: Editors and reviewers are provided with links to relevant ethical guidelines for peer reviewers.