peer review policy

1. Overview

Algora: Journal of AI, Data Science & Engineering is committed to maintaining high standards of scholarly quality, research integrity, fairness, and editorial independence. All research articles submitted to the journal are evaluated through a double-blind peer review process before they can be accepted for publication.

Peer review is intended to assess the originality, scholarly significance, methodological and technical soundness, validity, clarity, and relevance of submitted research.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

The journal follows a double-blind peer review model.

Under this process:

the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers; and
the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

Authors are required to submit an anonymized version of their manuscript for peer review. Names, institutional affiliations, acknowledgements, and other information that directly identifies the authors should be removed from the manuscript provided to reviewers.

The editorial team takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity throughout the review process. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed where an author's identity can be inferred from citations, datasets, research topics, previous publications, or other contextual information.

3. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment before external peer review.

The editorial team assesses whether the manuscript:

falls within the journal's aims and scope;
meets the journal's submission requirements;
demonstrates sufficient scholarly and technical quality for external review;
presents original and relevant research;
complies with applicable research and publication ethics requirements; and
raises any apparent concerns regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, research integrity, or other forms of publication misconduct.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review if it falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet minimum scholarly or technical standards, or does not comply with the journal's editorial or ethical requirements.

Passing the initial editorial screening does not guarantee acceptance for publication.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts that successfully pass the initial editorial screening are sent to at least two independent external reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research or professional experience, and ability to provide an objective and scholarly assessment.

Reviewers should not have relationships or interests that could compromise, or reasonably appear to compromise, their independence and impartiality.

Where necessary, the editor may invite additional reviewers, particularly when:

the initial reviewer reports differ substantially;
specialized expertise is required;
a reviewer is unable to complete the assessment; or
additional expert assessment is necessary to reach an informed editorial decision.

5. Reviewer Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Potential conflicts may include financial, professional, institutional, collaborative, competitive, or personal relationships that could reasonably affect the reviewer's impartiality.

A reviewer who believes that a conflict of interest prevents an objective assessment should decline the invitation or inform the responsible editor.

The journal reserves the right to withdraw a review assignment and appoint another reviewer where an actual or potential conflict of interest is identified.

6. Criteria for Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts objectively and constructively. Depending on the nature of the research, reviewers may consider:

originality and contribution to knowledge;
relevance to artificial intelligence, data science, engineering, and the journal's stated scope;
clarity of research objectives or questions;
appropriateness and soundness of the methodology;
quality of datasets, models, algorithms, experiments, simulations, or analytical methods, where applicable;
validity and reliability of the analysis;
adequacy and interpretation of results;
whether conclusions are supported by the evidence presented;
transparency and reproducibility of the research, where applicable;
relevance and adequacy of the scholarly literature cited;
clarity, organization, and academic presentation; and
compliance with relevant research and publication ethics.

Reviewers are expected to provide constructive and sufficiently detailed comments that assist both the authors in improving their manuscripts and the editors in making informed decisions.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted for peer review are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, discuss, or share a submitted manuscript or information contained within it with unauthorized persons.

Unpublished information, ideas, methods, datasets, results, source code, or other materials obtained through the peer review process must not be used for personal, professional, academic, financial, or commercial advantage.

Reviewer reports and reviewer identities are also treated confidentially in accordance with the journal's double-blind review model.

8. Reviewer Recommendations

Following assessment, reviewers provide comments and a recommendation to the editor.

Recommendations may include:

Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication without substantive changes.

Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes or clarification before it can be considered for acceptance.

Major Revision: Substantial changes, clarification, additional analysis, or other significant improvements are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Reviewers do not independently determine whether a manuscript is accepted or rejected.

9. Revision and Re-Review

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewers' and editor's comments have been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they may provide a reasoned scholarly explanation.

Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be:

assessed by the responsible editor;
returned to the original reviewers; or
sent to another qualified reviewer where additional expertise is required.

More than one round of revision may be required.

A request for revision does not constitute acceptance or guarantee eventual publication.

10. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

If the reviewers provide substantially different assessments or recommendations, the responsible editor will evaluate the manuscript and the reasoning presented in the reviewer reports.

Where necessary, the editor may seek clarification from reviewers or invite an additional independent reviewer to provide another expert assessment.

The final decision will be based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and the substance of the reviewer assessments rather than simply on the number of reviewers recommending a particular outcome.

11. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision on a manuscript is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

The final decision takes into account:

the manuscript's originality and scholarly contribution;
scientific and technical quality;
methodological soundness;
relevance to the journal's aims and scope;
reviewer reports;
authors' responses to reviewer comments;
compliance with ethical and research-integrity requirements; and
compliance with the journal's editorial policies.

The possible final decisions are acceptance, revision, or rejection.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance of any submitted manuscript.

12. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on the scholarly merit, technical quality, relevance, and integrity of submitted work.

Commercial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, institutional relationships, or publication charges do not determine whether an individual manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Any applicable publication fee is independent of the peer review and editorial decision-making process.

13. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Editors and members of the Editorial Board may submit manuscripts to the journal, but they receive no preferential treatment.

Where an editor or Editorial Board member is an author or co-author of a submitted manuscript, that individual will not participate in:

selecting reviewers;
managing the peer review of the manuscript; or
making the final editorial decision.

The manuscript will be assigned to another qualified editor who has no relevant conflict of interest and will undergo the journal's standard double-blind peer review process.

14. Supplementary Materials, Data and Code

Supplementary materials that are necessary for evaluating the validity of the research may be made available to reviewers as part of the peer review process.

For research involving artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, computational methods, software, or engineering applications, reviewers may assess relevant datasets, algorithms, models, source code, experimental procedures, evaluation methods, simulations, and supporting documentation where these materials form part of the scholarly evaluation.

Authors should ensure that supplementary materials provided for double-blind review are appropriately anonymized where necessary.

15. Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

Peer review requires independent human scholarly judgment.

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of unpublished manuscripts and associated materials. Submitted manuscripts, unpublished data, figures, tables, source code, or other confidential materials must not be uploaded to generative AI systems where confidentiality, privacy, intellectual property, or data security cannot be assured.

Reviewers and editors should not use generative AI to create their peer review assessments or editorial decisions.

The use of automated tools does not replace human editorial oversight or the independent scholarly judgment of reviewers and editors.

16. Ethical Concerns Identified During Peer Review

Reviewers should inform the responsible editor if they identify potential concerns involving:

plagiarism;
duplicate or redundant publication;
fabricated or falsified data;
inappropriate manipulation of images or results;
unethical research practices;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
inappropriate citation practices;
manipulation of the peer review process; or
other possible research or publication misconduct.

The editorial team will assess such concerns in accordance with the journal's publication ethics and research-integrity policies.

The journal may request explanations, original data, ethical approval documents, or other supporting information from authors when necessary.

17. Appeals Concerning Peer Review Decisions

Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual, scholarly, or procedural error affected the assessment of their manuscript.

An appeal should clearly identify the grounds for reconsideration and provide appropriate supporting arguments or evidence.

Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not automatically justify reconsideration.

Appeals will be handled in accordance with the journal's Complaints and Appeals Policy and, where practicable, will be assessed by an editor who was not directly responsible for the disputed decision.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

18. Content Not Subject to External Peer Review

All research articles published by Algora: Journal of AI, Data Science & Engineering are subject to the journal's double-blind external peer review process.

If the journal publishes non-research content that does not undergo external peer review, such as editorial notices, corrections, or administrative announcements, that content will be clearly identified as non-peer-reviewed.

Non-peer-reviewed material will not be presented as having undergone the journal's external peer review process.

19. Peer Review Records

The journal maintains appropriate records of the peer review and editorial decision-making process, including reviewer reports, author responses, editorial correspondence, and editorial decisions.

Such records are handled in accordance with applicable confidentiality, editorial, and data-protection requirements.

Reviewer identities remain confidential from authors under the journal's double-blind peer review system.

20. Commitment to Fair Peer Review

Algora: Journal of AI, Data Science & Engineering is committed to conducting peer review fairly, independently, confidentially, and consistently.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit and should not be affected by characteristics unrelated to the scholarly evaluation of the manuscript.

The journal's peer review process is intended to support the publication of original, methodologically sound, ethically conducted, technically rigorous, and academically valuable research in artificial intelligence, data science, engineering, and related fields.