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 is guided by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Core Practices, supplemented by ICCK's Instructions for Authors and Publication Ethics Statement. Manuscripts are evaluated against criteria including originality, methodological rigor, clarity, contribution to knowledge, and ethical compliance. ICCK maintains peer review and editorial oversight mechanisms designed to support scholarly rigor, scientific validity, and relevance to each journal's stated scope.
2. Review Workflow
Initial Checks
Editor-in-Chief Assignment
Reviewer Selection
Peer Evaluation
Editorial Decision
Revision & Re-review
Final Check
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 or lies outside the journal's defined scope.
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 is responsible for overseeing the review process in accordance with journal policies, with the aim of conducting it fairly and promptly.
2.4 Peer Review and Evaluation
Reviewers are expected to provide an adequate and thorough assessment of each manuscript. Reviewers evaluate 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 journal's defined scope and readership; manuscripts or citations that fall outside the journal's scope should be explicitly flagged.
- Appropriateness and relevance of cited literature; reviewers are expected to identify citations that are irrelevant, excessive, or unsupported by the manuscript's content.
- 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 or improvements.
Major Revision
The manuscript has potential but requires substantial improvements in methodology or analysis.
Reject
The manuscript does not meet academic standards or falls outside the journal's scope.
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 in accordance with journal policies. The EiC may reject any manuscript — regardless of reviewer recommendations — that is considered to lack scholarly rigor, scientific validity, or alignment with the journal's scope.
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.
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. Items such as plagiarism screening results, ethical approvals, data availability statements, and formatting are checked prior to final acceptance.
3. Ethical Standards and Community Standards
All parties in the peer review process — authors, reviewers, and editors — are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity consistent with the COPE Core Practices. 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.
Articles published in ICCK journals are expected to adhere to accepted best practices within their respective subject areas, including the use of standard terminology, nomenclature, and reporting conventions recognized by the relevant scholarly community.
4. Transparency, Accountability, and Conflict of Interest
Reviewers are required to evaluate manuscripts objectively, maintain confidentiality, and disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest (including personal, financial, or professional relationships with the authors or their institutions) to the handling editor before undertaking the review.
Editors are expected to act impartially and base decisions on academic merit. Editors who have a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript — including co-authorship, institutional affiliation, or competing financial interests — are expected to recuse themselves and delegate handling to another qualified editor.
ICCK reserves the right to issue corrections, retractions, or withdrawals in cases of proven ethical violations.