Reviewer Policies

  1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (specific to reviewers)
  2. Reviewers Guidelines

1. Conflict of Interest and Financial Disclosures (Specific to Reviewers)

Reviewers for International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Systems and Virtual Modeling (IJASVM) are asked to disclose any relationship that could reasonably be seen to compromise their objectivity before agreeing to review a manuscript.

A reviewer should decline an invitation, or disclose the conflict to the handling editor before proceeding, when:

  • They are a current collaborator, co-author, close family member, or from the same institution as one of the manuscript's authors, within the past three years
  • They have a financial interest in the outcome of the review (e.g., equity, consulting, or employment ties to a company whose product or technology is evaluated in the manuscript)
  • They have previously supervised or been supervised by one of the authors in a capacity that could compromise impartial judgment
  • They have a competing intellectual position (e.g., an active dispute with the authors over the same research question, or a direct competitor working on unpublished, closely related findings)

Reviewers are also required to disclose any funding, honoraria, or in-kind support received from an entity connected to the manuscript's subject matter within the past three years. Undisclosed conflicts discovered after a review is submitted are addressed under our Complaints Policy and may result in the manuscript being sent for independent re-review.

Reviewers must not use unpublished data, methods, or ideas encountered during review for their own research or professional advantage, and must not share the manuscript, in whole or part, with anyone outside the review process without the editor's explicit permission.

2. Reviewer Guidelines

Peer review is how International Journal of Artificial Intelligence, Systems and Virtual Modeling (IJASVM) maintains the quality and integrity of what it publishes, and we rely on reviewers to engage with each manuscript seriously, fairly, and within a reasonable timeframe.

What we ask of reviewers:

  • Evaluate on merit alone. Assess the manuscript's originality, methodological soundness, clarity of argument, and significance to the field — not the authors' reputation, institution, or nationality, which you won't be able to see under our double-blind process in any case.
  • Be specific and constructive. A recommendation of "reject" or "major revision" is far more useful to authors and editors when it's backed by specific, actionable points — which figure is unclear, which claim isn't supported by the data shown, which prior work should have been cited and why it matters.
  • Flag ethical concerns. If you suspect plagiarism, data fabrication, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or duplicate publication, note it explicitly to the handling editor rather than simply factoring it into your recommendation silently.
  • Maintain confidentiality. The manuscript under review, and your review of it, are confidential. Do not discuss the submission with colleagues, cite it, or use its unpublished content in your own work, even after you've submitted your review.
  • Respond within the requested timeframe. We typically ask for a review within [X weeks — set your actual target]. If you can't meet that window, please let the editorial office know as early as possible so the manuscript isn't delayed unnecessarily, or decline the invitation if you're unable to commit.
  • Disclose conflicts before starting. See the Conflict of Interest policy above — when in doubt, raise it with the handling editor rather than deciding unilaterally that it doesn't matter.

What a useful review typically includes:

  • A brief summary of the manuscript's claimed contribution, in your own words (this helps editors confirm you and the authors are aligned on what the paper is actually claiming)
  • Major concerns — issues that would need to be resolved before the manuscript could be considered for publication
  • Minor concerns — smaller issues (clarity, typos, formatting, minor omissions) that don't block publication but should be addressed
  • A clear recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject

Reviewer identities are kept confidential from authors throughout the process, in line with our double-blind review policy, and reviewer comments intended only for the editor (rather than the author) can be submitted separately as confidential comments.

We recognize that reviewing is unpaid, time-consuming work done in service of the field, and we try to respect that by keeping requests reasonable in number and scope, and by crediting reviewers (with their consent) in the journal's annual reviewer acknowledgment.