Peer-Review Policies

¡¡Every reviewer is expected to make objective and impartial evaluation of the manuscript based on the scientific quality and soundness of the article. Reviewers should keep the content of the manuscript, including the Abstract, confidential until the article is published. The review report shall provide constructive criticism that will help the authors improve their work. We ask reviewers to disclose any conflicts of interest and email the Editorial Department to decline the review invitation.

1.Confidentiality. Any manuscript received for review should be treated as a confidential document. The article and its contents must not be shown to or discussed with anyone without express authorization by the editor. The reviewer must not utilize the contents of a manuscript for his or her own benefit.

2.Objectivity. The reviewer comments should be based on an objective and impartial consideration of the scientific facts, exclusive of personal or professional bias. Reviewer comments should focus on the academic quality of the manuscript regardless of the author¡¯s race, gender, religion, belief, position and qualifications. Personal criticism and derogatory comments will not be tolerated. A clear and comprehensive review report shall be provided supported by well-organized reasoning and concrete evidence.

3.Professionalism. The reviewer shall examine the manuscript in terms of novelty, scientific quality and practical application of the study with a professional attitude. The reviewer is asked to appraise: 1. Whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and whether the study is appropriately designed and technically sound; 2. Whether the manuscript¡¯s results can be reproduced based on the detailed description of the experimental process; 3. Whether the authors¡¯ conclusions are justified given the data. If the reviewer becomes aware of any academic misconduct, or a confidentiality issue or a politically sensitive issue related to the manuscript, they should raise these concerns with the Editorial Department immediately. Detailed and constructive revision suggestions shall be provided so that the authors may correctly understand and address these points.

4. Review request decline. If the reviewer believes that the topic of the manuscript is outside his or her area of expertise, or he/she is not an expert on a particular aspect of the manuscript, or he/she cannot present a comprehensive review report of the study, or he/she cannot complete the review within the deadline, the prospective reviewer should promptly decline to perform the review.

5.Conflict of interest. Reviewers should disclose any conflicts of interest that may be perceived as interfering with objective assessment of the paper. Such conflicts include (but are not limited to) personal, financial, or professional competing interests with the authors. Reviewers are expected to abstain from reviewing by sending an email to the Editorial Department offering an explanation of the situation.

Copyright © CAAI Transactions on Intelligent Systems