Peer Review Process

Section Menu

Double-Blind Peer Review Policy

The Asian Journal of Computer Science and Technology (AJCST) follows a double-blind peer review process designed to support the quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance and integrity of the scholarly work it publishes. Under this model, author identities are withheld from reviewers and reviewer identities are withheld from authors. The journal’s subject coverage and editorial remit are defined in its Aims and Scope.

All submissions first undergo editorial screening. Manuscripts considered suitable for external assessment are normally reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers are selected for scholarly competence and independence and do not make the journal’s final editorial decision. Information about the journal’s editors is available on the Editorial Board page.

The final decision to accept, request revision or reject a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor on the basis of scholarly merit, reviewer reports, ethical compliance and relevance to AJCST’s Aims and Scope. Peer review provides expert advice for editorial decision-making; it does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

AJCST does not guarantee a fixed or unusually short review period because timing depends on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revisions and any need for additional expert assessment.

1. Objectives of Peer Review

  • Evaluate the originality, scholarly significance, methodological soundness, clarity and relevance of submitted manuscripts.
  • Provide constructive and evidence-based feedback that may help authors strengthen their work.
  • Promote impartial assessment by reducing the influence of author identity, affiliation, nationality or geographical location.
  • Identify ethical, integrity, reporting, citation, data or methodological concerns that may require clarification or further review.
  • Support fair and independent editorial decision-making while protecting confidentiality.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review Workflow

2.1 Manuscript Submission

Authors submit the manuscript and required supporting files through the AJCST Submit Manuscript route. Before submission, authors should review the Author Guidelines and ensure that identifying information is separated from the anonymised manuscript where required for double-blind review.

2.2 Administrative and Initial Editorial Screening

Before external review, the editorial office and an editor assess the submission. Screening may include:

  • completeness of submission files and required declarations;
  • basic scholarly quality and clarity;
  • originality, duplicate or redundant submission, and similarity concerns;

A manuscript may be returned for completion or clarification, or declined at the editorial stage, if it falls outside the journal’s scope, does not meet basic scholarly or ethical requirements, or is otherwise unsuitable for external peer review.

2.3 Reviewer Selection and Independence

For manuscripts proceeding to external review, the editor normally invites at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area. Selection considers relevant research experience, scholarly expertise, publication record and the ability to provide an objective assessment.

Reviewers must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest before accepting an assignment. A reviewer should decline when a financial, professional, personal, institutional, collaborative, competitive or other relationship could reasonably affect impartiality. Reviewer conduct should be consistent with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Additional reviewers may be invited when suitable reviewers are unavailable or when specialist expertise is required.

2.4 External Review

Reviewers receive an anonymised manuscript and assess it independently. The review normally considers:

  • originality and contribution to knowledge;
  • relevance to the journal’s scope and readership;
  • appropriateness and transparency of methods or methodology;
  • validity, reliability and interpretation of results or findings;
  • clarity, organisation and quality of scholarly presentation;
  • appropriateness and accuracy of tables, figures, references and supporting material;
  • ethical compliance, research integrity and disclosure requirements where applicable;
  • whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

2.5 Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide written comments for the editor and, where appropriate, constructive comments for the authors. Recommendations may include:

  • Accept: Suitable for publication without substantive revision, subject to final editorial checks.
  • Minor Revision: Limited changes or clarifications are required before publication can be considered.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form.

2.6 Editorial Decision

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not determine the decision automatically. The handling editor considers the reviewer reports together with the manuscript’s scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance and relevance to AJCST. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the editorial decision.

Where reviewer reports differ materially, the editor may seek clarification, invite an additional independent reviewer or make a reasoned decision based on the manuscript and the available expert reports.

2.7 Revision and Re-Review

When revision is requested, authors receive the relevant anonymised reviewer and editorial comments and should submit a revised manuscript together with a clear point-by-point response. Each substantive comment should be addressed, and authors should explain clearly where a recommendation has not been adopted.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when further expert assessment is necessary. More than one round of revision may be required.

2.8 Final Decision and Production

After assessment of the revised manuscript and any further reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or an authorised editor makes the final decision. Acceptance remains subject to satisfactory editorial, ethical, technical and production checks. Accepted manuscripts then proceed to copyediting, formatting, proofing and publication. Authors should also comply with the journal’s Copyright & Licensing Policy and, where applicable, complete the Copyright Form.

3. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence and unpublished information are confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss a manuscript with third parties without prior editorial permission, contact authors directly, or use unpublished information for personal, professional or competitive advantage.

Reviewers and editors must also comply with AJCST’s Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy. Confidential or unpublished manuscript material must not be uploaded to publicly accessible AI systems or other services where data-handling terms could compromise confidentiality, intellectual property or the integrity of peer review. Personal information is handled in accordance with the Privacy Policy.

4. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose conflicts of interest that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, impartiality. Where a relevant conflict exists, a reviewer should decline the invitation and an editor should recuse themselves from handling or deciding the manuscript. Another qualified reviewer or editor should be appointed where necessary. Broader competing-interest and integrity requirements are described in the Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement.

5. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to follow AJCST requirements and the ethical principles in the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Reviewers should:

  • accept review assignments only when the manuscript is within their expertise and the review can be completed responsibly;
  • provide an objective, respectful, evidence-based and constructive assessment without personal criticism of the authors;
  • protect the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process;
  • report significant uncited work, suspected plagiarism, data or image manipulation, fabrication, falsification or other ethical concerns privately to the editor;
  • request only citations that are genuinely relevant to the manuscript and not citations intended primarily to inflate metrics;
  • not use unpublished manuscript content for personal research or advantage;
  • disclose conflicts of interest promptly and decline the review when independence may be compromised.

6. Editorial Responsibilities and Independence

Editors are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers, managing conflicts of interest, safeguarding confidentiality, assessing reviewer reports and making fair editorial decisions. Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, ethical compliance and relevance to AJCST’s scope.

Editorial decisions are independent of Article Processing Charges & Waivers, an author’s ability to pay, waiver or discount status, print-subscription revenue, sponsorship, ownership interests, marketing activity or other commercial considerations. The journal’s business-model transparency is described in the Revenue Sources Statement and promotional activity is governed by the Direct Marketing Policy.

7. Ethical Concerns, Data Integrity and Research Misconduct

Reviewers and editors should report concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication, fabricated or falsified data, image manipulation, citation manipulation, unethical authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation or other research-integrity issues. Authors may be asked to provide supporting data, methodological details, ethics documentation, image files, analysis records or other information when necessary to assess validity, reproducibility or integrity.

Such concerns are handled in accordance with AJCST’s Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and, where relevant after publication, the Post-Publication and Accountability Policy. AJCST may also refer to the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing and the corresponding DOAJ transparency guidance for recognised scholarly-publishing standards.

8. Special Issues and Invited Manuscripts

Special-issue manuscripts, invited manuscripts and supplementary scholarly content are subject to the same standards of editorial screening, reviewer independence, peer-review integrity, conflict-of-interest management, confidentiality and publication ethics as regular submissions. Guest Editors may not bypass AJCST’s peer-review or ethical requirements. Additional information is available on the Special Issues and Article Collections page.

9. Review Time and Publication Timelines

AJCST aims to manage peer review and editorial decision-making efficiently, but review times vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number and extent of revisions and whether additional expert assessment is required. The journal does not guarantee acceptance, publication or a fixed review time.

Where AJCST publishes historical peer-review performance information on its Journal Insights page, those figures describe past performance only and should not be interpreted as guaranteed processing times for an individual submission.

10. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a material error in the peer-review or decision process may submit a written appeal to the editorial office. The appeal should identify the manuscript, explain the grounds for reconsideration and respond specifically to the relevant reviewer or editorial concerns.

Appeals are considered fairly and do not guarantee reconsideration, acceptance or publication. Where appropriate, an appeal may be reviewed by a senior editor or another qualified person who was not responsible for the original decision. Related procedures are described in the Publication Ethics & Publication Malpractice Statement and the Post-Publication and Accountability Policy.

11. Editorial Office

Questions concerning the peer-review process may be addressed through the AJCST Contact page or to the editorial office below:

Centre for Research and Innovation (CRI) ** **9/865, Maruthi Nagar, Rakkipalayam Post,

Coimbatore - 641031, Tamil Nadu, India.

Publisher website: CRI Journals

Email: editorial@crijournals.org