Peer Review Policy

Type of Review:

The International Journal of Future Technologies in Computer Science and Engineering (IJFTCSE) employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartiality by keeping both authors' and reviewers' identities anonymous throughout the review process. This system upholds fairness, eliminating any biases related to the identity, affiliation, or professional background of either party. The goal of this approach is to maintain the scientific integrity of the review and ensure that every submission is evaluated based purely on its merit and contribution to the field.

Reviewer Selection:

Reviewers for IJFTCSE are selected from an extensive and highly qualified pool based on their deep expertise in relevant subject areas of computer science, engineering, and future technologies. They are chosen for their academic credentials, professional achievements, and ability to provide timely and insightful feedback. All reviewers are expected to be impartial and have a proven record of published research in fields closely related to the manuscript's topic.

Review Duration:

The journal strives to complete the peer review process within four weeks from the submission date. This timeline ensures that authors receive constructive feedback promptly, allowing them to make necessary revisions. However, if additional time is required due to reviewer availability or the complexity of the manuscript, authors will be informed promptly, and the process will be adjusted accordingly.

Review Criteria:

Manuscripts submitted to IJFTCSE are assessed based on the following key criteria:

  • Originality: The manuscript should present novel findings or groundbreaking advancements that push the boundaries of current knowledge.
  • Scientific Rigor: Research methods should be robust, scientifically sound, and reproducible.
  • Clarity and Structure: The manuscript must be clearly written, logically structured, and easily accessible to the intended academic audience.
  • Relevance: The manuscript should contribute significantly to the evolving landscape of future technologies in computer science and engineering.

Reviewers provide detailed comments on each of these criteria, helping authors refine their work for greater academic impact.

Decision Categories:

After the peer review process, the editorial team will decide based on reviewer recommendations:

  • Accept: The manuscript is deemed ready for publication with no or minimal revisions.
  • Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires slight changes for clarity, methodology, or formatting.
  • Major Revisions: Significant revisions are needed before it can be reconsidered for publication.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards for publication.

Authors will receive a comprehensive summary of reviewers' comments and the editorial decision to guide their revisions.

Revisions:

Once authors receive feedback, they are expected to address reviewers' comments thoroughly and resubmit the revised manuscript. A point-by-point response to the reviewers’ suggestions is required, explaining how each concern has been addressed or justifying why certain suggestions were not incorporated. The revised manuscript should be submitted within a reasonable time frame as stipulated by the editorial board.

Appeals:

Authors have the right to appeal editorial decisions if they believe the review process was conducted unfairly or if there were errors in judgment. The appeal should include a clear justification and supporting evidence. The appeal will be reviewed by a different editorial panel, which will assess the concerns raised and ensure a fair resolution.

Confidentiality:

Manuscripts and their content are treated as confidential during the review process. Reviewers are required to refrain from discussing or disclosing any information contained in the manuscript prior to its publication. This confidentiality ensures the protection of authors' intellectual property and research ideas.

Ethical Standards:

All participants in the peer review process, including authors, reviewers, and editors, are expected to uphold high ethical standards. Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and maintain objectivity and confidentiality. Suspected misconduct, including plagiarism or unethical review practices, is thoroughly investigated to ensure the journal maintains its scientific integrity.