Peer Review Policy — JSUCIT (Double‑Blind)
JSUCIT uses a double‑blind peer‑review model: authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the process. Editorial decisions are guided by recognized publication‑ethics standards (e.g., COPE, CSE) and by the journal’s scope and quality criteria.
Process Overview
- Editorial screening (desk review): The Editor‑in‑Chief or a delegated Associate Editor checks fit with JSUCIT scope, originality, quality, and IEEE formatting; submissions may be declined at this stage.
- Reviewer assignment: Suitable manuscripts are sent to up to 3–4 independent experts for double‑blind review.
- Evaluation: Reviewers assess significance, relevance, methodological rigor, clarity, ethics/compliance, and reproducibility (where feasible).
- Decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject; the decision is approved by the Editor‑in‑Chief and communicated to the corresponding author.
- Typical timeline: ~2–3 months end‑to‑end, depending on reviewer availability and revision cycles.
Revisions & Proofs
- Revision deadlines: Normally 60 days for the first revision and 20 days for subsequent rounds; late submissions may be treated as new.
- Page proofs: Accepted papers receive proofs for correction of typesetting errors; return within 14 calendar days.
Reviewer Responsibilities (Double‑Blind)
- Confidentiality: Treat manuscripts as confidential; do not share without permission.
- Objectivity & constructiveness: Provide numbered, evidence‑based feedback; avoid personal criticism.
- Ethical vigilance: Flag plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, or ethical issues.
- Relevant literature: Suggest key, unbiased references that may have been missed.
- Conflicts of interest: Decline if a significant conflict could bias the review, or disclose it immediately.
- Scope & quality: Consider structure, clarity, methods, analysis, conclusions, and alignment with JSUCIT guidelines and IEEE style.
Guidance to Reviewers
Accept invitations only when you have appropriate expertise and can meet the deadline; otherwise decline promptly (you may suggest qualified alternatives). Focus on originality, methodological soundness, clarity, and fit within JSUCIT’s scope. If recommending revision, provide actionable suggestions; if recommending rejection, explain why the manuscript is unlikely to become publishable.
Editorial Independence & Responsibilities
Final decisions rest with the Editor‑in‑Chief (with input from Associate Editors and reviewers). Editors safeguard the integrity of the record, issue corrections/errata when necessary, and uphold impartiality independent of institutional or commercial interests.
