Reviewer Guide

Roles and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for evaluating manuscripts according to their field of expertise and providing constructive, objective, and professional feedback to authors. Reviewers are expected to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript, suggest improvements, and assess its relevance, originality, and scientific contribution to the field of computer science, informatics, and next generation technology.

Before Conducting the Review

1. Expertise Relevance

Ensure that the assigned manuscript matches your area of expertise. If the manuscript is outside your competence, promptly inform the editor and, if possible, recommend an alternative reviewer.

2. Availability

The review process is expected to be completed within 2–4 weeks. If additional time is required, reviewers should communicate with the editor immediately.

3. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest before conducting the review. Manuscripts involving collaboration, institutional relationships, or personal interests that may affect objectivity should not be reviewed.

Review Process and Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

1. Title and Abstract

  • Does the title clearly reflect the content of the manuscript?
  • Does the abstract accurately summarize the objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions?
  • Are the keywords relevant to the topic?

2. Introduction

  • Are the background and research problems clearly presented?
  • Is there a relevant and recent literature review?
  • Are the objectives and significance of the study clearly stated?

3. Scope Relevance

  • Is the manuscript aligned with the focus and scope of INFONEX: Journal of Informatics and Next Generation Technology?
  • Is the topic relevant to areas such as Artificial Intelligence, Cyber Security, IoT, Cloud Computing, Data Science, Multimedia, Robotics, Information Systems, or other computing technologies?

4. Originality and Scientific Contribution

  • Does the manuscript demonstrate sufficient novelty and originality?
  • Does it provide meaningful scientific or technological contributions?
  • Are there indications of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical practices?

5. Research Methodology

  • Is the methodology clearly and systematically described?
  • Is the selected method appropriate for the research objectives?
  • Can the study be replicated based on the provided procedures and data?
  • Are analytical methods and tools adequately explained?

6. Results and Discussion

  • Are the results presented clearly and logically?
  • Is the data analysis appropriate and scientifically sound?
  • Does the discussion adequately compare findings with previous studies?
  • Are practical implications or innovations highlighted?

7. Conclusion

  • Are the conclusions supported by the research findings?
  • Do the conclusions answer the research objectives?
  • Are future research directions or recommendations provided?

8. Tables and Figures

  • Are tables, charts, and figures relevant and clearly presented?
  • Do visual elements effectively support the explanation of the results?

9. Writing Quality

  • Is the manuscript written in clear and proper academic language?
  • Is the manuscript organized systematically?
  • Are references relevant, recent, and consistently formatted?

Additional Evaluation Aspects

Innovation and Technological Relevance

  • Manuscripts that present innovative approaches, intelligent systems, digital transformation, or emerging technologies are highly encouraged.

Types of Contribution

  • Original research articles (original research)
  • Review articles (literature review)
  • Case studies and technology implementation
  • System or application development studies

Review Ethics

  • The entire review process must remain confidential
  • Reviewers must not contact authors directly
  • Review materials may not be shared with third parties without editor permission
  • Reviewers should report to the editor if there are indications of:
    • Plagiarism
    • Data fabrication or falsification
    • Ethical violations
    • Duplicate publication

Review Recommendations

Reviewers are requested to provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept without revision
  • Accept with minor revisions
  • Accept with major revisions
  • Reject

Comment Format

Reviewer comments should be separated into:

Comments to the Editor (Confidential)

  • Internal evaluation and recommendations for editorial consideration

Comments to the Author (Author Feedback)

  • Constructive, clear, objective, and detailed feedback to improve the manuscript

Closing

All review results will be considered carefully by the editorial board in making the final publication decision. INFONEX highly appreciates objective, professional, and constructive reviews to improve the quality of scientific publications in the fields of informatics, computer science, and next generation technology.