Reviewer Guidelines

INFORMATION FOR REVIEWERS

Reviewer Guidelines

Peer Review Responsibilities and Ethical Standards

The Journal of Computer Science and Technology Application (CORISINTA) is committed to maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publications through a rigorous peer review process. CORISINTA applies a double-blind peer review system involving three independent reviewers for each research article. Reviewers play an essential role in evaluating submitted manuscripts and providing constructive feedback to improve the academic quality of published research.

3
Independent Reviewers

Three independent academic assessments.

DBR
Double-Blind Review

Confidential author and reviewer identities.

1
Editorial Decision

Final decision by the responsible editor.

1

Reviewer Selection and Qualifications

CORISINTA selects three independent reviewers for each research article based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and expertise relevant to the subject of the submitted manuscript.

Reviewer qualifications include:
  • Relevant academic or professional expertise.
  • Research experience in the manuscript's subject area.
  • Ability to provide objective and constructive feedback.
  • Independence from the authors and the research being evaluated.
  • Willingness to comply with confidentiality and publication ethics.
2

Peer Review Process

CORISINTA implements a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Each research article is evaluated independently by three qualified reviewers to ensure comprehensive academic assessment and balanced editorial consideration.

Independent Peer Review
Three Reviewers

Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript independently.

R1
Reviewer 1
Independent
R2
Reviewer 2
Independent
R3
Reviewer 3
Independent
Three Independent Review Reports
Review Workflow
1
Initial Editorial Screening

The editorial team checks the manuscript's relevance, completeness, originality, and compliance with the journal's submission requirements.

2
Assignment of Three Reviewers

The editor assigns three independent reviewers with relevant academic expertise to evaluate the manuscript.

3
Independent Manuscript Evaluation

Each of the three reviewers independently assesses the manuscript and submits an individual evaluation report and recommendation.

4
Editorial Assessment

The editor examines all three review reports, considers the reviewers' recommendations, and evaluates the manuscript's academic quality.

5
Revision and Final Decision

Authors receive the editorial decision and reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts may be returned for further evaluation when necessary.

3

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to provide a thorough and constructive evaluation that assists the editor in making informed publication decisions and helps authors improve the quality of their manuscripts.

1. Contribution to Editorial Decisions

Provide professional assessments and recommendations that support editorial decisions and contribute to manuscript improvement.

2. Technical and Scientific Assessment

Evaluate the research objectives, methodology, analysis, findings, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

3. Constructive Feedback

Provide clear, specific, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their work.

4. Acknowledgment of Sources

Identify relevant published studies that have not been appropriately cited and notify the editor of substantial similarities with other works.

5. Reporting Ethical Concerns

Inform the editor of potential plagiarism, duplicate publication, data inconsistencies, or other concerns regarding research integrity.

4

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not disclose, distribute, reproduce, or discuss manuscript contents with unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers must:
  • Keep all manuscript information confidential.
  • Not share manuscripts or unpublished research findings with others.
  • Not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.
  • Communicate manuscript-related matters through authorized editorial channels.
5

Objectivity and Fairness

Reviews must be conducted objectively and professionally. Reviewers should focus on the scientific and academic quality of the manuscript rather than the personal characteristics, institutional background, nationality, gender, religious beliefs, or other personal attributes of the authors. Personal criticism is inappropriate, and all comments should be supported by clear academic reasoning.

6

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial assessment. Such conflicts may arise from professional, financial, personal, academic, competitive, or collaborative relationships.

Important

If a conflict of interest exists, reviewers should promptly inform the editor and decline the review assignment where impartiality cannot be maintained.

7

Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are expected to complete their assessments within the timeframe communicated by the editorial team. If a reviewer is unable to complete the review within the expected period or lacks the necessary expertise, the editor should be notified promptly. Reviewers should not accept assignments that they cannot reasonably complete.

8

Ethical Considerations

Reviewers are expected to uphold academic integrity and comply with ethical standards throughout the review process.

Research Integrity

Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, duplicate publication, inappropriate citation practices, and other potential research misconduct to the editor.

Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must protect confidential manuscript information and must not upload unpublished manuscripts to public generative AI systems or use such systems to generate substantive peer review assessments. Any permitted use of automated tools for language editing or formatting must not compromise confidentiality, reviewer independence, or the integrity of the evaluation.

9

Reviewer Recommendations

Each of the three reviewers must provide an individual recommendation supported by their comments and academic assessment.

Accept

The manuscript meets the journal's academic and publication requirements.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements before publication consideration.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvements and further assessment.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the required academic or publication standards.

The three reviewer recommendations are considered by the editor. The final editorial decision remains the responsibility of the editor and is not determined solely by a numerical vote.

10

Editorial Decision

The editor is responsible for making the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance, revision, or rejection. The decision is based on the three independent reviewers' reports, the manuscript's academic quality, its relevance to the journal's scope, and compliance with editorial policies. The editor may request further review when additional academic assessment is necessary.

11

Reviewer Registration

Researchers and academic professionals interested in contributing as reviewers for CORISINTA may register through the journal's reviewer registration page. Applicants should provide accurate academic and professional information to support the editorial team's reviewer selection process.

Registration Information

Applicants are encouraged to provide their academic affiliation, institutional email address, research interests, professional background, and relevant researcher identifiers where available.

Commitment to Research Integrity

CORISINTA values the contribution of independent reviewers in maintaining the quality and credibility of scholarly publications. Through a three-reviewer evaluation process, constructive feedback, and responsible review practices, the journal aims to ensure that published research meets appropriate academic and ethical standards.

Journal of Computer Science and Technology Application (CORISINTA)