Peer Review Policy

Applied Computer Science and Software Engineering (ACSSE) · J. Appl. Comput. Sci. Softw. Eng. · Online ISSN 3064-4658 · Published by Zahira Studies · Two issues per year (March and September)

1. Purpose

ACSSE is committed to publishing research that is rigorous, original, and relevant to applied computer science and software engineering. Peer review is the mechanism through which the journal safeguards the quality, validity, and integrity of the scholarly record. This policy explains how manuscripts are evaluated, what is expected of authors, reviewers, and editors, and how decisions are made.

2. Type of Peer Review

ACSSE uses a single-blind peer review process. Reviewers know the identities of the authors, while the identities of reviewers are withheld from the authors throughout the review process. Authors therefore do not need to anonymize their manuscripts and should provide names, affiliations, and contact details as required by the manuscript template. Because reviewers can see who wrote the manuscript, they must declare any conflict of interest before accepting an invitation and must not contact authors directly or reveal their own identity.

3. Scope of Review

All research articles, review articles, and other contributions submitted as scholarly content are subject to peer review. Editorials, announcements, and other editorial notes may be published at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief without external review.

4. The Review Process

4.1 Initial Screening (Editorial Check)

Every submission is first assessed by the editorial office and the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor for:

  • fit with the journal's focus and scope;
  • compliance with the author guidelines and manuscript template;
  • completeness of the submission (abstract, references, ethics and data statements, where applicable);
  • basic scientific and language quality; and
  • originality, using similarity-detection software such as Turnitin or iThenticate.

Manuscripts that are out of scope, incomplete, of insufficient quality, or show unacceptable levels of text overlap may be rejected at this stage without external review, or returned to the authors for correction before review begins.

4.2 Assignment to Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass screening are assigned to a handling editor, who invites at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest. Additional reviewers may be invited when the topic is interdisciplinary or when reviewers' assessments diverge significantly.

4.3 Evaluation by Reviewers

Reviewers assess each manuscript against the following criteria:

  • Originality and significance: Does the work make a meaningful contribution to the field?
  • Technical soundness: Are the methods, algorithms, system designs, experiments, and analyses appropriate and correctly executed?
  • Reproducibility: Are datasets, code, parameters, and experimental settings described sufficiently for others to replicate the work?
  • Practical relevance: Does the work demonstrate applicability to real-world computing or software engineering problems?
  • Validity of conclusions: Are the conclusions supported by the results presented?
  • Literature and context: Is related work adequately and fairly covered?
  • Presentation: Is the manuscript clearly organized, well written, and ethically sound?

Reviewers submit a written report with comments for the authors and a recommendation to the editor.

4.4 Review Timeline

Reviewers are asked to return their reports within two to three weeks of accepting an invitation. The journal aims to give authors a first decision within four to eight weeks of submission. Actual timing may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

5. Editorial Decisions

Based on the reviewers' reports and their own assessment, the handling editor recommends, and the Editor-in-Chief makes, one of the following decisions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is accepted as is or with only minor editorial changes.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript is acceptable pending small changes. Revised versions are typically checked by the editor.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript is normally returned to the original reviewers.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in ACSSE.

The Editor-in-Chief holds final authority over publication decisions. Editorial decisions are based solely on the scholarly merit of the work and its relevance to the journal, and are never influenced by the authors' nationality, gender, institution, seniority, or other personal characteristics.

6. Revisions and Resubmission

Authors who receive a revision decision must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment, clearly indicating the changes made or explaining why a suggestion was not adopted. Revisions are expected within the period stated in the decision letter (normally two to four weeks); extensions may be requested from the editorial office. A manuscript may undergo more than one round of revision before a final decision is reached.

7. Appeals and Complaints

Authors who believe a decision was based on a misunderstanding, factual error, or procedural unfairness may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision, with a detailed justification and responses to the reviewers' points. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an editor or reviewer not previously involved. The outcome of the appeal is final. Complaints about the review process may be sent to the editorial office through the Contact page.

8. Responsibilities

8.1 Reviewers

  • Treat the manuscript and all related material as strictly confidential, and do not share, copy, or use its content for personal advantage.
  • Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback, avoiding personal criticism of the authors.
  • Decline the invitation promptly if they lack the necessary expertise, cannot meet the deadline, or have a conflict of interest.
  • Alert the editor to any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate submission, or other ethical concerns.
  • Not use generative AI tools to evaluate or write reviews in a way that exposes confidential manuscript content. Any limited use of AI for language editing of the review must not involve uploading the manuscript.

8.2 Authors

  • Submit original work that is not under consideration elsewhere and has not been published previously.
  • Provide complete and accurate author names, affiliations, and contact details, as reviewers will know the authors' identities.
  • Respond to reviewers' comments honestly, courteously, and on time.
  • Provide access to data, code, or supporting material on request, where applicable.
  • Disclose any use of generative AI tools in the preparation of the manuscript, in accordance with the journal's publication ethics statement.

8.3 Editors

  • Evaluate manuscripts fairly, impartially, and on intellectual merit only.
  • Maintain the confidentiality of submissions and of the identities of reviewers.
  • Recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest, including those authored by colleagues, family members, or members of the same institution. Manuscripts submitted by editors or editorial board members are handled by an independent editor, with the author excluded from all decision-making.
  • Ensure that decisions are made in a timely manner and communicated clearly.

9. Conflicts of Interest

All participants in the review process must disclose any financial, professional, personal, or institutional relationships that could reasonably be seen as influencing their judgement. Reviewers should not be from the same institution as the authors, have co-authored with them in recent years, or have a direct competing interest. Authors may suggest or exclude potential reviewers, but the journal is not obliged to follow these suggestions.

10. Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. They must not be shared with or discussed with anyone outside the review process, except as authorized by the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewer reports and correspondence are kept confidential, and reviewers' identities are not disclosed to authors.

11. Research and Publication Ethics

ACSSE follows the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Suspected misconduct, such as plagiarism, fabricated or manipulated data, redundant publication, authorship disputes, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, is handled according to the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement. Where misconduct is confirmed, the journal may reject the manuscript, publish a correction or retraction, and notify the authors' institution.

12. Contact

Questions about this policy or the status of a submission can be directed to the editorial office through the journal's Contact page.