Peer Review Transparency & Process

Peer Review Transparency and Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Computing Research and Innovation (JCRINN) are subject to a double-blind peer review process. The identity of the authors is not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identity of the reviewers is not disclosed to the authors. This process is intended to support independent, fair, and objective assessment of all submitted manuscripts.

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening shall be reviewed by a minimum of two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research background, publication record, and relevance to the manuscript topic. The journal may appoint additional reviewers when the manuscript requires further technical evaluation, when reviewer reports are substantially conflicting, or when the Section Editor determines that additional expert opinion is necessary.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript is first screened by the editorial office or assigned Section Editor. The initial screening normally includes checking the manuscript for suitability to the journal scope, completeness of submission files, adherence to author guidelines, ethical compliance, plagiarism or similarity concerns, and basic scholarly quality. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal scope, show serious ethical concerns, contain excessive similarity, or fail to meet minimum academic standards may be rejected without external peer review.

Reviewer Selection and Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must be independent from the authors and the submitted work. A reviewer should not accept a review assignment if there is any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest. Conflicts of interest may include recent collaboration with the authors, institutional affiliation with the authors, personal relationship, direct competition, financial interest, supervisory relationship, or any situation that may affect the reviewer’s impartial judgment.

If a conflict of interest is identified before or during the review process, the reviewer must inform the editorial office or Section Editor immediately. The Section Editor shall decide whether the reviewer should be replaced. If the conflict involves the Section Editor, the matter shall be referred to the Chief Editor, who will assign another editor or make the appropriate editorial decision.

Review Timeline

The normal peer review duration is approximately 5 to 8 weeks from the date the manuscript is assigned for review. This timeline may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, the need for additional reviewers, or the extent of required revisions. Reviewers are expected to submit clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments within the assigned review period.

Authors may be invited to revise their manuscript based on reviewer and editorial comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by the Section Editor, or sent to additional reviewers when necessary.

Editorial Decision and Final Authority

After receiving the reviewer reports, the Section Editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript quality, the authors’ responses, and the suitability of the manuscript for publication. The possible editorial decisions may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision, resubmission for further review, or rejection.

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the assigned Section Editor. However, if there is a conflict of interest involving the Section Editor, disagreement requiring higher editorial judgment, or any ethical concern, the Chief Editor shall have the authority to make the final decision or appoint another editor to handle the manuscript.

The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage of the editorial process if serious ethical, methodological, authorship, originality, or publication integrity concerns are identified.