Information for Reviewers

Reviewer Guidelines

The basic purpose of peer reviews is to insure the quality of scholarly journals. Your evaluation will play a major role in our decision as to whether to accept a manuscript for publication. We trust you to be prompt, fair, respectful of the rights of the authors, respectful of our obligations to the readership, and to evaluate the manuscript carefully and in depth. We are very grateful for the time and effort you invest in the review process.
Please do not show it to anyone or discuss it, except to solicit assistance with a technical point. If you feel a colleague is more qualified than you to review the paper, do not pass the manuscript on to that person without first requesting permission to do so. Your review and recommendation should also be considered confidential.
Conflicts of Interest
If you feel you might have difficulty writing an objective review, please return the paper immediately, unreviewed. If your previous or present connection with the author(s) or an author's institution might be construed as creating a conflict of interest, but no actual conflict exists, please discuss this issue in your confidential comments to the editor. If in doubt, feel free to contact the Associate Editor-in-Chief who requested your review.
Comments for Authors
Identify the major contributions of the paper. What are its major strengths and weaknesses, and its suitability for publication? Please include both general and specific comments bearing on these questions, and emphasize your most significant points.
Fairness & Objectivity
Comments directed to the author should convince the author that 1) you have read the entire paper carefully, 2) your criticisms are objective and correct, are not merely differences of opinion, and are intended to help the author improve his or her paper, and 3) you are qualified to provide an expert opinion about the research reported in this paper. If you fail to win the author's respect and appreciation, much of your effort will have been wasted.

Review Policy
A reply will be sent upon receiving your papers, and the peer review can be up to 3 months. Competent reviewers are selected from the Editorial Board and volunteer guest editors. Identities of reviewers will not be revealed in order to get a candid review. The reviewers will recommend to the Associate Editor-in-Chief whether the paper should be accepted, revised or rejected after the reviews are completed. The Editor-in-Chief will closely monitor the process to ensure a thorough, unbiased, confidential review and be responsible for the final decision.

Please note that the publication process for accepted articles may take an additional 2-4 months only after they have been through the review process and accepted by the Editor-in-chief. If published, two sample copies will be sent to the authors (only for domestic authors at present; overseas authors may contact with the editor to get an electronic pdf copy via email). If authors need more copies, please contact the editor in advance.

Referee Report 

Paper Id: _______________


Referee's Name:___________________________________________


Paper Title: ______________________________________________


1. Type of paper:  (Choose the appropriate choice.)


Research results  





2. Category in which the paper best fits in: (Choose the appropriate choice.)

a.  Machine intelligence with specific emphasis on:
- expert, agents, diagnostic and decision supporting systems;
- data and web mining;
- neural networks, fuzzy systems, rough set theory, chaos theory and evolutionary algorithms;
- reasoning, knowledge extraction and knowledge management.
b.  Applications of computer science in modeling.
c.  Visualization and multimedia.
d.  Data and information systems.
e.  Internet and distributed computer systems.
f.  Semantic Web technologies.
g. Other (Specify ____________________________________________ )

3. Please rate the paper on the following features. (Choose the appropriate choice.)







Potential interest to CS community 






Significance of the main idea(s) 






Originality of the work 






Technical quality of the paper 






Awareness of related work






Clarity of presentation 






4. How confident are you in your rating of this paper? Circle the relevant option. 





5. Comments (if any) for the Editor's use: 

6. Comments to be communicated to the author. If require please use  on a separate sheet (the referee's identity will not be disclosed to the authors). If you have recommended the paper for rejection then please try to explain why you did so, in a constructive manner. 


7. Overall Evaluation for consideration as a regular paper (Please tick the appropriate choice): 

Definite Accept  

Marginal Accept  

Likely Reject  

Definite Reject 

Referee's Signature