Peer Review Process

Axinova International Journal of Computer Science follows a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, technical accuracy, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. The journal is committed to maintaining fairness, transparency, objectivity, and high scholarly standards throughout the review and publication process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts are initially evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned editorial member to determine whether they align with the journal's aims and scope, comply with submission guidelines, meet ethical standards, and demonstrate sufficient academic quality and originality.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy the journal’s basic requirements may be rejected without external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully pass the preliminary screening are forwarded to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant research area. AIJCS follows a double-blind review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

3. Review Criteria

  • Originality and novelty of research
  • Scientific and technical contribution
  • Relevance to Computer Science and Information Technology
  • Clarity of objectives and problem statement
  • Appropriateness of methodology, algorithms, and system design
  • Accuracy of results and analysis
  • Quality of conclusions and future scope
  • Technical presentation and language quality
  • Compliance with ethical and publication standards

4. Editorial Decision

  • Accept as Submitted
  • Accept with Minor Revisions
  • Major Revisions Required
  • Reject

5. Revision Process

Authors receiving revision requests must address reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

6. Final Decision

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on reviewer recommendations, editorial evaluation, and the overall quality of the revised manuscript.

7. Peer Review Workflow

Submission → Initial Screening → Plagiarism Check → Double-Blind Peer Review → Reviewer Recommendations → Editorial Decision → Author Revision → Final Acceptance → Publication