1. General Principles

All journals published by Institute of Central Computation and Knowledge Inc. (ICCK) implement a rigorous and transparent peer review policy designed to ensure academic quality, integrity, and fairness in scholarly publishing. ICCK journals generally adopt a single-blind review model, where reviewers remain anonymous but authors’ identities are known. This system allows objective evaluation while protecting reviewer independence.

The review process follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Best Practice Guidelines, supplemented by ICCK’s Instructions for Authors and Publication Ethics Statement. All manuscripts are assessed based on originality, methodological rigor, clarity, contribution to knowledge, and ethical compliance.

2. Review Workflow

2.1 Initial Checks
Each submission is first screened by the Managing Editor to verify formatting, completeness, ethical compliance, and alignment with journal scope. Manuscripts failing these requirements may be rejected without review or returned for revision. No judgment on novelty or significance is made at this stage.

2.2 Assignment to Editor-in-Chief
Manuscripts passing initial checks are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC). The EiC may:
- Assign the manuscript to an Academic Editor for peer review.
- Request clarifications or minor corrections prior to review.
- Reject the manuscript if it clearly falls short of academic quality standards.

2.3 Assignment to Academic Editor
The Academic Editor evaluates the manuscript’s academic merit and appoints at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The Academic Editor ensures the review process is conducted fairly, promptly, and in accordance with journal policies.

2.4 Peer Review and Evaluation
Reviewers assess the manuscript against the following criteria:
- Originality and novelty of the research.
- Scientific rigor and soundness of methodology.
- Clarity, organization, and coherence of the manuscript.
- Relevance to the field and readership.
- Contribution to advancing research, practice, or policy.
Reviewers provide detailed, constructive comments and select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept: The manuscript meets all requirements and may be published with only minor editorial adjustments.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript is publishable in principle, but requires minor clarifications, corrections, or improvements that do not alter the main conclusions. Re-review may not be necessary.
• Major Revision: The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvements in methodology, data analysis, or clarity. Authors must revise extensively and resubmit. Re-review is often required.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet academic standards or falls outside the journal’s scope. Resubmission is not encouraged unless substantially reworked.

2.5 Editorial Decision
Based on at least two independent review reports, the Academic Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief. The EiC makes the final decision, ensuring academic quality and policy compliance.

2.6 Revision and Re-review
Authors receiving a revision decision must:
- Submit a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments.
- Provide a marked-up copy of the manuscript (highlighting changes) along with a clean version.
- Resubmit within the specified timeframe (typically 14 days for minor revisions, 30 days for major revisions).
Major revisions are usually returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

2.7 Final Check
Once accepted by the EiC, manuscripts undergo a technical and ethical compliance check by the Editorial Office. Issues such as plagiarism, ethical approvals, data availability, and formatting are verified prior to final acceptance.

3. Ethical Standards

All parties in the peer review process — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity. Misconduct, including plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, redundant publication, or undeclared conflicts of interest, is strictly prohibited. ICCK uses iThenticate – Crossref Similarity Check to screen submissions for text similarity. Cases of suspected misconduct are investigated following COPE guidelines.

4. Transparency and Accountability

- Authors receive detailed reviewer feedback and are entitled to respond to critiques.
- Reviewers must evaluate objectively, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any conflicts of interest.
- Editors ensure impartiality, protect the integrity of the review process, and make decisions based on academic merit alone.
- ICCK reserves the right to issue corrections, retractions, or withdrawals in cases of proven ethical violations.