Review Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All manuscripts submitted to CoSIE undergo an initial assessment by the editor before external peer review. The editor checks whether the manuscript meets the journal's basic editorial and scientific requirements, including:

• Scope and relevance: alignment with CoSIE's focus and scope in computer science and informatics engineering.
• Originality and contribution: a meaningful contribution, original findings, or a relevant advancement in the field.
• Completeness and format: compliance with the journal's author guidelines and submission requirements.
• Methodological adequacy: appropriate research design and methods for the stated objectives.
• Publication ethics: screening for potential plagiarism, redundant publication, inappropriate text reuse, and other ethical concerns.
• Clarity: sufficient organization and language quality for meaningful scientific evaluation.

CoSIE may use similarity-detection software, such as Turnitin, to support editorial assessment. Similarity reports are interpreted in context and are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism or making an editorial decision. Manuscripts outside the journal's scope, lacking essential requirements, or raising unresolved concerns about originality or publication ethics may be rejected before external review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

In the double-blind process, authors are not informed of reviewers' identities, and reviewers are not provided with authors' identities through the review materials. Authors should prepare manuscripts to support anonymous review, including removing identifying information from the review file where appropriate.

Each manuscript that passes initial screening is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers must assess the manuscript objectively, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.

The division above indicates each reviewer's primary area of emphasis and does not restrict either reviewer from commenting on any aspect relevant to scientific quality, clarity, originality, or ethical integrity. Additional reviewers may be invited when further expert assessment is necessary.

3. Review Duration

The duration of the peer-review and editorial process may vary depending on manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of review rounds, and the extent of revisions required. CoSIE strives to conduct the review process efficiently while maintaining the quality, fairness, and integrity of editorial assessment. Authors will be informed of editorial decisions and any significant delays when appropriate.

4. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers submit written reports containing constructive comments for the authors and a recommendation to the editor. The editor considers the reports, scientific merit, relevance to CoSIE's scope, and any ethical or editorial concerns before making a decision.

• Accept: the manuscript meets the journal's requirements and may proceed to production, subject to final editorial and technical checks.
• Minor Revision: limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements are required before final acceptance can be considered.
• Major Revision: substantial changes are required; the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers.
• Reject: the manuscript does not meet the journal's scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial requirements, or its limitations cannot be adequately addressed through revision.

Reviewers provide recommendations but do not make the final publication decision. The editor retains final authority. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

5. Manuscript Revision and Re-evaluation

When revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment and editorial recommendation has been addressed. Authors should identify changes clearly and provide a reasoned explanation when they disagree with a recommendation.

The editor assesses the revised manuscript and may return it to the original reviewers or assign additional reviewers, depending on the nature of the revisions. If substantive concerns remain unresolved, the editor may request further revision or reject the manuscript. Final acceptance is granted only when the editor determines that the manuscript meets the journal's standards.

6. Acceptance and Production

After final acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to production. This may include copyediting, reference and metadata verification, formatting, typesetting, layout preparation, and author proofreading.

Authors should check proofs for typographical, factual, and formatting errors. Substantial changes to content, data, or scientific conclusions at the proof stage require editorial approval. An article is eligible for publication only after the required editorial and production checks have been completed.

7. Continuous Publication Policy

8. Confidentiality and Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and information obtained during peer review as confidential. Manuscripts must not be shared with unauthorized individuals or used for personal, professional, or research advantage. Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments.
• Evaluate scholarly merit rather than authors' personal characteristics, nationality, or institutional affiliation.
• Identify relevant published work that has not been appropriately cited.
• Report suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other research misconduct to the editor.
• Declare actual or potential conflicts of interest and decline assignments when impartiality or expertise may be compromised.
• Avoid using unpublished information from a manuscript without authorization.
• Refrain from contacting authors directly about a manuscript under review unless authorized by the editor.

9. Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Peer Review

CoSIE recognizes that artificial intelligence (AI), including generative AI and large language models (LLMs), may assist certain research and editorial activities. Any use of AI in peer review must comply with the journal's Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy and uphold confidentiality, research integrity, transparency, and human accountability.

8.1. AI Use by Reviewers

Reviewers must independently evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodology, validity of results, and contribution of each manuscript. AI tools must not replace reviewers' professional judgment or responsibility for their reports.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, unpublished findings, confidential review reports, or privileged editorial materials to public or external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured, unless such use is explicitly permitted by CoSIE and adequate confidentiality protections are in place. Where AI-assisted tools are permitted and used in preparing a review, reviewers must disclose such use to the editor and remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and appropriateness of their assessments.

8.2. AI Use by Editors

Editors may use appropriate AI-assisted tools for limited administrative or editorial support, provided confidentiality and publication ethics are maintained. Manuscripts and confidential editorial communications must not be uploaded to external AI systems where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed. AI tools must not replace independent editorial judgment in reviewer selection, evaluation of review reports, or publication decisions.

8.3. Transparency and Accountability

Relevant AI use in research, manuscript preparation, or editorial activities must be disclosed in accordance with CoSIE's AI Policy. Authors remain responsible for verifying AI-assisted content, including factual claims, data, code, references, and conclusions. Misuse of confidential information or submission of fabricated or misleading AI-generated content may result in editorial action under the journal's publication ethics policies.

For complete requirements and examples of acceptable and unacceptable AI use, consult the CoSIE Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.

10. Responsibilities of Editors

Editors manage the review process fairly, confidentially, and efficiently. Editorial decisions must be based on scholarly quality, relevance, reviewer assessments, and compliance with publication ethics. Editors are responsible for:

• Selecting qualified and independent reviewers.
• Evaluating reviewer reports critically rather than accepting recommendations automatically.
• Addressing conflicting reviewer opinions through editorial assessment or additional review where necessary.
• Protecting the confidentiality of authors and reviewers.
• Identifying and managing conflicts of interest.
• Ensuring consistent application of editorial policies.
• Addressing allegations of publication misconduct under the journal's ethics policies and applicable guidance.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by commercial interests, personal relationships, institutional affiliation, or other inappropriate considerations.

11. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity

CoSIE expects authors, reviewers, and editors to uphold high standards of research integrity and publication ethics. Potential concerns include plagiarism, redundant publication, data fabrication or falsification, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, and other forms of research misconduct.

When a concern is identified, the editor may request clarification or supporting documentation and take further action as appropriate. Cases are handled in accordance with CoSIE's publication ethics policies and relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Where applicable, authors must obtain required ethical approvals, permissions, and informed consent and report them accurately in the manuscript.

The journal may reject a manuscript, suspend the editorial process, or take appropriate post-publication action when serious ethical concerns are substantiated.

12. Editorial Independence and Final Authority

CoSIE's editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, originality, relevance, and compliance with publication ethics. Acceptance is not guaranteed by submission, personal relationships, institutional affiliation, or any consideration unrelated to the quality and suitability of the manuscript.

The editor retains final authority over editorial decisions, including acceptance, revision, rejection, and assignment of accepted articles to the appropriate issue.

Through these procedures, CoSIE aims to maintain a fair, transparent, confidential, and academically rigorous peer review system that supports the reliability of the scholarly record.

---

For AI-specific requirements, please consult the CoSIE Artificial Intelligence (AI) Policy.