Impact in Computics

Review Process

Impact in Computics follows a transparent and rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, and scholarly value of all published articles. All submitted manuscripts are assessed for scope, ethical compliance, originality, methodological soundness, and relevance to the journal.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript is checked by the editorial office for completeness, journal scope, formatting, plagiarism, ethical declarations, authorship information, competing interests, funding statements, and required files. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected without external review.

2. Editorial Assessment

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. The editor evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review based on its relevance, originality, scientific quality, and contribution to the field.

3. Reviewer Selection

Suitable manuscripts are sent to independent reviewers with relevant expertise. The journal normally seeks reports from at least two independent reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, absence of conflicts of interest, and ability to provide a fair and timely review.

4. Peer Review Model

The journal uses a single-blind peer review model. Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors, while author identities are visible to reviewers. Reviewers are expected to treat all manuscripts as confidential documents and must not share, discuss, or use the manuscript content for personal advantage.

5. Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on originality, technical quality, clarity of objectives, appropriateness of methodology, validity of results, adequacy of references, ethical compliance, quality of presentation, and relevance to the journal scope.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' comments and the editor's assessment, one of the following decisions may be made:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject and Resubmit
• Reject

7. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed response to reviewers. Authors should clearly explain how each comment has been addressed and highlight or track all changes made in the manuscript. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the extent of revision required.

8. Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized handling editor. Acceptance is based on the manuscript meeting the journal's scientific, ethical, and editorial standards. The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if serious concerns arise.

9. Production and Publication

After acceptance, the manuscript enters production for copyediting, formatting, metadata preparation, DOI registration, and final publication. The journal follows a continuous publication model, and accepted articles are published online as soon as production is completed.

10. Typical Review Timeline

11. Confidentiality

Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must keep all submitted manuscripts and related correspondence confidential. Manuscript content must not be disclosed, copied, distributed, or used before publication.

12. Conflicts of Interest

Editors and reviewers must declare any conflict of interest that may affect their impartiality. A reviewer should decline the invitation if there is a personal, financial, institutional, collaborative, or competitive relationship with the authors or the work under review.

13. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a clear explanation and supporting evidence to the journal office. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or an independent editorial board member. The appeal outcome is final.

14. Special Issues

Articles submitted to special issues follow the same peer review standards as regular submissions. Guest editors may assist in managing special issue submissions, but the Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for editorial oversight and final decisions. Submissions from guest editors are handled through an independent review process.

15. Review Process Flow