Peer Review Process

At the International Journal of Data Science (IJoDS), we uphold the highest standards of integrity and rigour in scholarly publishing. Our peer-review process is central to our mission, ensuring that the research we publish is of high quality and significant relevance to the field. We employ a double-blind peer review model to maintain impartiality and fairness, where the reviewers and the authors are anonymous.

In the double-blind peer review process, the identities of both the reviewers and the authors are concealed. This approach helps to prevent bias that may stem from the authors' previous work, institutional affiliations, nationality, or other personal characteristics, promoting an unbiased evaluation based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

Steps in the Peer Review Process

  1. Submission and Initial Check: Each manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes a preliminary screening by the editorial team. This initial check ensures that the manuscript complies with the journal's guidelines, fits within its scope, and adheres to ethical standards, including plagiarism checks.
  2. Editor Assignment: Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an Associate Editor based on the subject relevance. The Associate Editor conducts a preliminary assessment to decide if the manuscript should advance to the peer review stage.
  3. Reviewer Selection: The Associate Editor identifies potential reviewers who are subject matter experts with no conflicts of interest relative to the manuscript. Reviewers are selected for their expertise, reputation, and previous experience with peer review processes.
  4. Invitation to Review: Potential reviewers are invited to review the manuscript. They receive guidelines and a checklist that detail the assessment criteria, including originality, methodological rigour, clarity, and contribution to the field.
  5. Conducting the Review: Reviewers are provided access to the manuscript without identifying information about the authors. At least two or three reviewers evaluate each manuscript to ensure a comprehensive and balanced review. Reviewers submit detailed reports with recommendations for acceptance, revision, or rejection.
  6. Editorial Decision Making: The Associate Editor compiles the reviews and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' feedback and the manuscript's quality and fit for the journal. Possible decisions include accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject.
  7. Communication with Authors: Authors are notified of the decision, accompanied by anonymized reviewer comments. If revisions are required, authors are provided specific guidance on how to enhance their manuscript.
  8. Revision and Resubmission: Authors asked to revise their manuscript must address the reviewers' comments in a detailed response letter, explaining how each comment was addressed or providing justification for any points not addressed. The revised manuscript may be reviewed again by the original or new reviewers to ensure all concerns have been met.
  9. Final Decision: After reviewing revised manuscripts, a final decision is made to accept or reject the manuscript. This decision and any final comments from the reviewers are communicated to the authors.
  10. Publication: Manuscripts accepted for publication undergo a copy-editing process, are formatted for publication, and then published online in an open-access format, freely accessible to the global academic community.

Ensuring Quality and Integrity

Our double-blind peer review process is designed to be rigorous, fair, and unbiased, with multiple expert evaluations to maintain high scholarly standards. We ensure the integrity of this process through regular training for reviewers and updates to our review guidelines.

Appeals and Concerns

Authors dissatisfied with editorial decisions can appeal by contacting the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed rationale. Appeals are thoroughly considered, potentially involving a new panel of reviewers.

Confidentiality and Ethical Considerations

We strictly maintain the confidentiality of authors and reviewers throughout the peer review process. The journal adheres to ethical guidelines for scholarly publishing, and any suspected misconduct or breaches are investigated thoroughly.

This detailed description of the double-blind peer review process emphasizes our commitment to scholarly rigour and ethical standards, ensuring that IJoDS continues contributing valuable insights to the academic community.

Becoming a Reviewer

If you are not currently a reviewer for IJoDS but would like to be added as a reviewer, don't hesitate to contact us. The benefits of reviewing for IJoDS include seeing and evaluating the latest work in the related research area at an early stage. You may also be able to cite your work for IJoDS as part of your professional development requirements. IJoDS's reviewers are volunteers who contribute their expertise to the science; thus, no financial payments are made.