Reviewer Guidelines

1. General Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

• Evaluate manuscripts objectively, independently, fairly, and professionally.
• Assess the manuscript's originality, scientific contribution, methodological rigor, and relevance to the aims and scope of CoSIE.
• Provide clear, constructive, specific, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve their manuscripts.
• Distinguish major scientific or methodological concerns from minor editorial and technical corrections.
• Base assessments on the actual content of the submitted manuscript.
• Avoid personal criticism, unsupported allegations, vague comments, and repetitive observations.
• Avoid inventing weaknesses, missing experiments, references, data, or results that are not supported by the manuscript.
• Disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest to the editor.
• Report suspected plagiarism, redundant publication, data manipulation, or other research-integrity concerns confidentially to the editor.
• Complete reviews within the assigned deadline or inform the editor promptly if additional time is required.

2. Reviewer 1: Scientific Contribution and Literature Review

Reviewer 1 primarily evaluates the manuscript's scientific contribution, originality, research gap, theoretical foundation, literature review, and references.

1. Relevance and scope: Whether the manuscript is relevant to CoSIE's aims and scope.
2. Research problem and objectives: Whether the research problem, objectives, and research questions are clearly formulated.
3. Research gap: Whether the manuscript identifies a meaningful gap in existing research and explains why it matters.
4. Originality and novelty: Whether the work offers a sufficiently clear contribution beyond existing studies.
5. Literature review: Whether the literature is relevant, sufficiently current where appropriate, critically analyzed, and properly connected to the research problem.
6. Scientific contribution: Whether the manuscript explains its theoretical, methodological, computational, or practical contribution.
7. Interpretation and conclusions: Whether the interpretations and conclusions are consistent with the findings and supported by the evidence presented.
8. References: Whether the cited literature is relevant, adequate, accurate, and appropriately used.

Reviewer 1 should identify the manuscript's main strengths and weaknesses and provide specific suggestions for strengthening its scientific argument and contribution.

3. Reviewer 2: Methodology and Research Validity

Reviewer 2 primarily evaluates the research design, data, analytical procedures, experiments, results, and reproducibility of the study.

1. Research design: Whether the selected research design and methods are appropriate for the stated objectives.
2. Data and sampling: Whether data sources, sampling procedures, data collection, and inclusion or exclusion criteria are adequately described.
3. Data preparation: Whether preprocessing, data cleaning, feature selection, and other analytical preparation procedures are appropriate and sufficiently documented.
4. Methods and algorithms: Whether the selected models, algorithms, analytical methods, and experimental settings are adequately justified.
5. Validation and evaluation: Whether evaluation metrics, validation procedures, comparison methods, and experimental designs are appropriate.
6. Results and analysis: Whether the results, tables, figures, statistical analyses, and computational outputs are reported accurately and consistently.
7. Interpretation: Whether the discussion and conclusions are supported by the results and whether limitations are appropriately acknowledged.
8. Reproducibility: Whether the manuscript provides sufficient methodological information for the research to be understood and, where feasible, reproduced.
9. Research limitations: Whether potential bias, data leakage, insufficient validation, or other methodological limitations are identified when supported by the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 should explain significant methodological or analytical concerns and, where possible, suggest specific improvements.

4. Structure of the Review Report

To ensure consistent and useful feedback, reviewers should organize their reports using the following structure:

1. Overall Assessment: A concise assessment of the manuscript's scientific quality, contribution, strengths, and principal limitations.
2. Major Comments: Substantive issues that may affect originality, scientific validity, methodology, interpretation, or suitability for publication. Explain why each issue matters and recommend appropriate revisions where possible.
3. Minor Comments: Specific corrections concerning clarity, terminology, grammar, references, tables, figures, formatting, or other technical details.
4. Recommendation: Select the appropriate editorial recommendation through the designated recommendation field in the CoSIE OJS system.

All comments should be professional, specific, constructive, and actionable. Reviewers should avoid relying exclusively on general statements or checklists without explaining the reasons for their assessments.

5. Submission of Review Reports and Comments

Reviewers are required to download the official review report template provided by CoSIE, complete the template, and upload the completed report through their respective reviewer accounts in the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

The review report template is provided to standardize the evaluation process and ensure that reviewers address the essential aspects of manuscript quality.

1. Access the review assignment: Log in to the CoSIE OJS system using the reviewer account and open the assigned manuscript.
2. Download the review template: Obtain the official review report template provided in the reviewer account or through the download link designated by the journal.
3. Complete the template: Enter the evaluation, overall assessment, major comments, minor comments, and other required information in the appropriate sections of the template.
4. Check the report: Ensure that the comments are complete, clear, evidence-based, constructive, and consistent with the manuscript. Verify that the report does not contain identifying information that could compromise the double-blind review process.
5. Upload the completed report: Upload the completed template through the designated review discussion or file-upload section of the assigned manuscript in the reviewer's OJS account.
6. Submit the review: Complete the remaining review steps in OJS, including selecting the required recommendation and confirming submission where prompted.
7. Verify submission: Confirm that the report has been uploaded successfully and that the review assignment has been submitted according to the system's instructions.

All substantive manuscript comments and assessments should be recorded in the official review report template. If OJS also requires a separate recommendation or response in a designated field, reviewers must complete that field as well.

Reviewers must not send completed review reports directly to authors or through unofficial communication channels unless explicitly authorized by the editor. All reports must be submitted through the official OJS workflow to maintain confidentiality, documentation, and traceability.

Reviewers are responsible for ensuring that the correct file is uploaded and that the report is complete before submitting the review.

6. Confidentiality and Double-Blind Review

Reviewers must maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript, review report, editorial correspondence, and all information obtained during the review process.

• Share or distribute the manuscript or review materials only with authorized individuals.
• Do not publicly discuss unpublished manuscript content.
• Do not use unpublished findings or ideas for personal or professional advantage.
• Do not contact authors directly about the submission unless explicitly authorized by the editor.
• Do not include identifying information in the review report or document metadata where this could compromise the double-blind process.

Any concerns about the manuscript should be communicated through the designated OJS workflow or confidentially to the editor.

7. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools

Reviewers must comply with CoSIE's applicable artificial intelligence policy when using AI-assisted tools in connection with peer review.

Confidential manuscripts and review materials must not be uploaded to external AI tools or third-party services if doing so could compromise confidentiality, data protection, or compliance with the journal's policies.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted tools must preserve the confidentiality and integrity of the review process. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, fairness, originality, and professional quality of their submitted assessments.

Reviewers must not rely on AI-generated statements without appropriate verification or submit unsupported assessments generated by such tools.

8. Competing Interests

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of their assessment.

Potential conflicts may include current or recent collaboration with one or more authors; personal, financial, academic, or professional relationships that could compromise impartiality; direct competition involving closely related research or unpublished findings; or any other interest that could reasonably influence the review.

Reviewers who identify a relevant conflict must inform the editor promptly. They should decline the assignment if impartiality cannot reasonably be maintained. The editor determines whether the review should proceed or be reassigned.

9. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should confidentially inform the editor of credible concerns involving plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, unethical research practices, or other potential breaches of research integrity.

Where possible, reviewers should explain their concerns clearly and provide relevant evidence or references. Reviewers should avoid making public accusations or conducting investigations beyond what is appropriate for the review assignment.

The editor is responsible for assessing reported concerns and determining the appropriate action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

10. Editorial Recommendations and Final Decisions

Reviewers should select the recommendation that best reflects the manuscript's scientific quality and the seriousness of the identified issues.

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections or improvements.
• Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial revisions and may need further evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's requirements for publication.

The exact labels available in OJS may differ according to the journal's configuration. Reviewers should select the appropriate option provided in their review assignment.

The reviewer's recommendation is advisory. The editor retains responsibility for the final editorial decision, taking into account the review reports, the manuscript's scientific merit, and the journal's editorial policies.

11. Commitment to Fair and Responsible Peer Review

CoSIE values the time, expertise, and professional contribution of its reviewers. High-quality peer review supports the reliability of scientific findings, improves manuscript quality, and strengthens the integrity of scholarly communication.

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers are expected to follow these guidelines and the journal's applicable editorial, publication ethics, confidentiality, and AI policies.

Thank you for contributing to the quality and integrity of the Journal of Computer Science and Informatics Engineering (CoSIE).