Peer Review Process
Editorial Quality Assurance
Peer Review Process
Bayanika Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Data Science applies a rigorous, fair, constructive, and accountable peer review process to ensure that every published article meets high standards of originality, methodological soundness, ethical integrity, technical validity, and relevance to the journal scope.
Peer Review Model
The journal applies a double-blind peer review process. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed during the review process to reduce bias and support objective scholarly evaluation. Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial screening is normally reviewed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewers may be selected from the editorial board, reviewer database, or external experts. All reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, and timely assessments based on the scientific quality of the manuscript.
Principles of Peer Review
Rigorous
Manuscripts are evaluated based on research validity, methodological rigor, technical correctness, analytical depth, and quality of interpretation.
Fair
Editorial decisions are made based on scholarly merit, not on institutional affiliation, nationality, seniority, personal background, or financial considerations.
Constructive
Review reports should help authors improve the manuscript through clear, specific, respectful, and academically useful feedback.
Independent
Reviewers and editors must avoid conflicts of interest and must not manipulate the review process for personal, institutional, or citation-related benefits.
Confidential
Manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial discussions, and unpublished research findings must be treated as confidential materials.
Efficient
The journal aims to handle manuscripts efficiently while maintaining careful editorial assessment and rigorous peer review standards.
Peer Review Workflow
Submission
Authors submit the manuscript through the online journal system. The submission must include manuscript files, metadata, author information, declarations, and supplementary files where applicable.
Administrative Check
The editorial office checks manuscript completeness, template compliance, metadata, author information, references, figures, tables, and required ethical declarations.
Initial Editorial Screening
The editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits the journal scope, has sufficient scholarly contribution, demonstrates originality, and meets the minimum quality requirements for peer review.
Similarity and Research Integrity Check
The manuscript may be screened for plagiarism, excessive similarity, text recycling, duplicate publication, data concerns, authorship issues, image manipulation, or other possible forms of misconduct.
Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers. Reviewers are selected based on expertise, publication record, availability, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Independent Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript independently and provide comments, recommendations, and suggestions for improvement. Reviewers assess originality, methods, data, results, discussion, references, and ethical compliance.
Editorial Decision
The handling editor considers reviewer reports and makes an editorial recommendation. The final decision may be issued by the editor-in-chief or an authorized editor according to the journal workflow.
Revision by Authors
If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.
Re-Evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor, original reviewers, or additional reviewers depending on the extent of revision and the nature of unresolved issues.
Final Validation and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout editing, proofreading, metadata checking, DOI assignment when available, online publication, and issue assignment.
Possible Editorial Decisions
Accept
The manuscript is accepted for publication after editorial validation.
Minor Revision
The manuscript requires limited corrections before further editorial assessment.
Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial improvement and may be returned to reviewers.
Resubmit for Review
The manuscript needs major restructuring and must undergo a new or extended review cycle.
Reject
The manuscript is not suitable for publication due to scope, quality, novelty, ethical, or methodological concerns.
Acceptance Criteria
Original Contribution
The manuscript presents a clear scholarly contribution, such as a novel method, model, framework, algorithm, evaluation, dataset analysis, or theoretically meaningful application.
Sound Methodology
The research design, data collection, modeling procedure, experimental setup, and analytical methods are appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently described.
Valid Results
The results are supported by suitable evidence, proper evaluation metrics, adequate comparison, and reasonable interpretation.
Ethical Compliance
The manuscript complies with ethical standards regarding authorship, data use, privacy, consent, conflict of interest, and research integrity.
Clear Presentation
The manuscript is clearly written, logically structured, properly referenced, and suitable for rigorous scholarly communication.
Relevance to Scope
The topic aligns with artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, intelligent systems, computational intelligence, or related interdisciplinary applications.
Grounds for Rejection
- The manuscript is outside the aims and scope of the journal.
- The manuscript lacks a clear research problem, objective, novelty, or scholarly contribution.
- The methodology, dataset, experimental design, or analysis is seriously flawed or insufficiently explained.
- The results are unsupported, misleading, irreproducible, or inconsistent with the stated conclusions.
- The manuscript contains plagiarism, duplicate publication, excessive text recycling, or unattributed material.
- The manuscript violates authorship, conflict of interest, data privacy, ethical approval, or research integrity standards.
- The manuscript contains fabricated or falsified data, manipulated images, or unreliable experimental results.
- The language and presentation are not sufficient to allow rigorous peer review.
- The references are inappropriate, biased, irrelevant, incomplete, or used for citation manipulation.
- The authors fail to respond adequately to reviewer or editor comments during the revision process.
Responsibilities of Review Participants
Authors
Authors must submit original work, follow journal guidelines, provide accurate data and references, disclose conflicts of interest, respond respectfully to comments, and revise the manuscript carefully when requested.
Reviewers
Reviewers must evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain confidentiality, declare conflicts of interest, avoid coercive citation requests, provide constructive feedback, and submit reviews within the agreed timeline.
Editors
Editors must manage the review process fairly, select qualified reviewers, evaluate reviewer reports, ensure ethical compliance, make decisions based on scholarly merit, and protect editorial independence.
Editorial Office
The editorial office supports manuscript administration, communication, documentation, integrity screening, production coordination, and preservation of accurate editorial records.
Reviewer Selection and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, research experience, methodological competence, and availability. Reviewers must decline an invitation if they have a conflict of interest with the authors, institution, funding source, research topic, or manuscript content.
Reviewers and editors must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal research advantage. They must also avoid coercive citation practices, personal criticism, discriminatory comments, or any attempt to influence editorial decisions improperly.
Revision and Author Response
Authors receiving a revision decision must prepare a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response letter. The response letter should clearly indicate how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed. If an author disagrees with a comment, the disagreement must be explained respectfully and supported by scholarly reasoning or evidence.
Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe, or failure to respond adequately to essential concerns, may result in rejection or withdrawal from the review process.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that an editorial decision was based on factual error, procedural irregularity, misunderstanding of the manuscript, or demonstrable bias. Appeals must be written in a professional, factual, and respectful manner.
The editorial office may consult the handling editor, editor-in-chief, additional editorial board members, or independent experts to evaluate the appeal. The appeal process does not guarantee reversal of the decision. Manuscripts will remain rejected if the grounds for rejection remain valid.
Estimated Review Timeline
Administrative check and initial editorial screening.
Reviewer invitation, independent review, and editorial assessment.
Author revision and possible re-evaluation.
Copyediting, proofreading, metadata checking, and online publication after acceptance.
The timeline above is an estimate. Actual processing time may vary depending on manuscript quality, reviewer availability, revision complexity, author response time, and production queue.
Editorial Integrity Statement
The journal does not set a predetermined acceptance or rejection rate. Each manuscript is evaluated on its own scholarly merit, methodological validity, ethical compliance, clarity, and relevance to the journal scope. Payment, institutional affiliation, personal relationship, or author background must not influence editorial decisions.
