Reviewer Guideline

Thank you for agreeing to serve as a reviewer for AIPA's International Journal on AI: Bridging Technology, Society, and Policy. Your expertise and insights are invaluable in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal's peer review process. The following guidelines are provided to assist you in conducting a thorough and constructive review:

Confidentiality: All manuscripts assigned for review are confidential documents. Reviewers should not discuss, share, or disclose the content of the manuscript to any third parties without explicit permission from the journal.

Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest that may influence their impartiality or judgment regarding the manuscript. Conflicts of interest may include personal relationships, professional affiliations, or financial interests related to the authors or the research topic.

Objectivity and Integrity: Reviews should be conducted objectively and with integrity, focusing on the scientific validity, originality, significance, and ethical considerations of the research presented in the manuscript. Reviewers should provide constructive feedback and avoid personal criticism or bias.

Timeliness: Reviewers are requested to complete their reviews promptly and within the designated timeframe specified by the journal. If unable to meet the deadline, reviewers should notify the editorial office as soon as possible to avoid delays in the peer review process.

Comprehensive Evaluation: Reviewers should evaluate all aspects of the manuscript, including the clarity of presentation, methodology, results, interpretation, and conclusions. Specific comments and suggestions for improvement should be provided to help authors strengthen their work.

Quality of Writing: Reviewers should assess the quality of writing, organization, and language usage in the manuscript. Suggestions for improving clarity, coherence, and readability should be provided, especially if language issues may hinder the understanding of the research.

Ethical Considerations: Reviewers should alert the editor to any ethical concerns or violations identified in the manuscript, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest. Reviewers should adhere to ethical guidelines and standards when evaluating research integrity and compliance with ethical principles.

Recommendation: Reviewers should provide a clear recommendation regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, based on their assessment of its scientific merit, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope. Recommendations may include acceptance, minor revisions, major revisions, or rejection, along with justification for the decision.

Constructive Feedback: Reviewers should provide specific, actionable feedback to help authors improve their manuscript. Feedback should be provided in a respectful and professional manner, focusing on areas for enhancement rather than criticism.

Reviewer Anonymity: Reviewers may choose to remain anonymous or disclose their identity to the authors, depending on the journal's policies and the reviewer's preference. Reviewers should respect the confidentiality of their anonymity if requested by the editorial office.

The role of a reviewer is crucial in maintaining the quality and integrity of the research published in AIPA's International Journal on AI. Below is an extensive guide that provides detailed information on the technical and procedural aspects of the review process.


1. Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

1.1. Reviewer Qualifications:

  • Educational Background: Reviewers should have a PhD or MD (where applicable) and possess relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
  • Publication Record: A proven track record of publications in the field, verified through platforms such as Scopus or ORCID.
  • Institutional Affiliation: Reviewers should have an official and recognized academic affiliation.

1.2. Ethical Responsibilities:

  • Impartiality: Reviewers must provide an unbiased evaluation, judging each manuscript based on its merits without regard to the authors' race, religion, nationality, gender, seniority, or institutional affiliation.
  • Conflict of Interest: Any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed before accepting the review. This includes personal relationships with the authors, financial interests, or collaborations within the last three years.
  • Confidentiality: Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process. Do not share or discuss the manuscript with anyone outside the review process without explicit permission from the editor.
  • Independent Review: The review report should be prepared independently. Using AI tools to write reviews or involving others without permission is prohibited.
  • Constructive Feedback: Provide detailed, constructive, and evidence-based feedback aimed at improving the manuscript.

2. Before You Begin the Review

2.1. Invitation to Review:

  • Prompt Response: Respond promptly to review invitations. If unable to review, suggest alternative reviewers if possible.
  • Time Management: Ensure that you can complete the review within the specified timeframe. Inform the editor immediately if you anticipate any delays.

2.2. Assessing Conflicts of Interest:

  • Conflict Disclosure: Disclose any potential conflicts of interest. Avoid reviewing if there is a personal or professional relationship with the authors or if you have collaborated with them recently.

2.3. Understanding the Review Process:

  • Review Type: Familiarize yourself with the type of peer review employed by the journal (e.g., double-blind, single-blind, open review)​.
  • Submission Guidelines: Review the journal’s submission guidelines and ensure you understand the criteria for evaluating manuscripts.

3. Conducting the Review

3.1. Detailed Review Criteria:

  • Title and Abstract: Assess whether the title and abstract accurately reflect the manuscript’s content and main findings.
  • Introduction: Evaluate the originality, significance, and clarity of the research question or hypothesis. Ensure the literature review is comprehensive and current.
  • Methods: Check for methodological rigor, replicability, and adherence to ethical standards. Ensure statistical analyses are appropriate and robust​.
  • Results: Verify the clarity and validity of the results. Ensure that data is presented coherently and supports the conclusions drawn.
  • Discussion: Assess if the discussion accurately interprets the results, situates them within the existing literature, and addresses the research question. Ensure conclusions are evidence-based and logically derived from the data.
  • References: Ensure references are relevant, recent, and properly formatted. Check for balance and adequacy in citing related work.
  • Ethical Considerations: Highlight any ethical concerns, such as potential plagiarism or issues with data integrity.

3.2. Specific Review Aspects:

  • Data Presentation: Evaluate the clarity and accuracy of figures, tables, and supplementary materials. Ensure that they are well-integrated with the text.
  • Statistical Analysis: Verify that statistical methods are sound and appropriate. Check for proper reporting of statistical significance and confidence intervals.
  • Replicability: Ensure the methods section provides enough detail for replication. Reviewers should look for clarity in experimental design and execution.

4. Writing the Review Report

4.1. Structure of the Report:

  • Summary: Provide a concise summary of the manuscript, including its aims, methodology, key findings, and significance.
  • Major Comments: Highlight major strengths and weaknesses, methodological issues, and the significance of the findings. Provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement.
  • Minor Comments: Include detailed suggestions for minor corrections, such as language, formatting, and minor methodological adjustments.
  • Recommendation: Clearly state your recommendation (accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject) with justification.

4.2. Constructive Feedback:

  • Professional Tone: Maintain a professional and courteous tone. Avoid personal criticism and antagonistic comments.
  • Specific Suggestions: Provide specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Highlight areas that require clarification, additional data, or reanalysis.
  • Evidence-Based Comments: Ensure comments are supported by evidence. Reference relevant literature to justify your feedback.

5. Post-Review Process

5.1. Revisions and Resubmission:

  • Review of Revisions: When revisions are requested, authors are asked to respond to each comment and revise their manuscript accordingly. Reviewers may be asked to reassess the revised manuscript to ensure all concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.
  • Follow-Up: If only minor revisions are requested, the handling editor may assess the revised manuscript. For major revisions, the manuscript is typically sent back to the original reviewers.

5.2. Final Decision:

  • Editor’s Decision: The final decision on the manuscript will be made by the Editor-in-Chief, considering the reviewers' recommendations and the authors' revisions.

5.3. Reviewer Recognition and Benefits:

  • Acknowledgment: Reviewers may receive discount vouchers for publication fees in our journal as recognition for their contribution.
  • Professional Development: Reviewing provides an opportunity to stay updated with the latest research and contribute to the academic community.

6. Technical Guidance for Reviewers

6.1. Detailed Methodological Assessment:

  • Experimental Design: Assess the appropriateness and robustness of the experimental design. Look for well-defined control groups and replication strategies.
  • Data Integrity: Evaluate the integrity and reliability of the data. Check for consistency and reproducibility of the results.
  • Statistical Methods: Ensure that statistical analyses are correctly applied and interpreted. Look for proper reporting of statistical measures and significance levels.

6.2. Ethical Compliance:

  • Ethical Standards: Verify that the research adheres to ethical standards, including obtaining necessary approvals and informed consent.
  • Plagiarism Detection: Be vigilant for signs of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism. Use plagiarism detection tools if necessary and report any suspicions to the editor​.

6.3. Reporting Guidelines:

  • Compliance with Standards: Ensure that the manuscript complies with reporting guidelines relevant to the research type (e.g., CONSORT for clinical trials, PRISMA for systematic reviews)​
  • Data Transparency: Check for transparency in data reporting, including availability of datasets and adherence to data sharing policies.

By adhering to these detailed guidelines, reviewers can ensure a thorough, fair, and constructive review process, contributing significantly to the quality and integrity of the research published in AIPA's International Journal on AI: Bridging Technology, Society, and Policy.

 

Thank you for your dedication to maintaining the quality and excellence of AIPA's International Journal on AI. Your conscientious review contributions are essential in advancing scholarship and fostering innovation in the field of artificial intelligence.

If you have any questions or require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial office.

 
https://aipajournal.com/index.php/pub/reviewerguideline
aipajournal.com
CC-MAIN-2024-33
150249
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:PKRGUB3N77PFFOWREYNMFK6IIKCCKZZE
<urn:uuid:dc9b5333-9867-4d8a-b23a-1398225769b9>
2024-08-14T11:13:32Z
188.132.158.132
text/html
sha1:TTBSMDBW76DGMEUGSEZL674OB4PUIIW5
<urn:uuid:e6f2ebf5-412f-4984-99e8-307db3cf1f5d>
https://aipajournal.com/index.php/pub/reviewerguideline
response
<urn:uuid:e1f9bf1a-6296-4bf6-bf58-bf654c383607>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-219
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/