Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

The Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Human Sciences (YZIB) is committed to a fair, independent, confidential, rigorous, and transparent peer-review process.

All scholarly manuscripts submitted to YZIB are subject to editorial evaluation and, when considered suitable for further consideration, undergo a double-blind peer-review process.

In double-blind peer review, the identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts are first evaluated by the editorial office before being sent for external peer review.

During the initial screening, manuscripts may be assessed for:

  • conformity with the journal's aims and scope;

  • scientific relevance and originality;

  • basic methodological adequacy;

  • compliance with author guidelines;

  • completeness of required declarations and documentation;

  • publication ethics requirements;

  • plagiarism or inappropriate textual overlap;

  • ethical approval and informed consent, where applicable;

  • appropriate disclosure of conflicts of interest, funding, and AI use; and

  • overall suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript that clearly falls outside the journal's scope, does not meet basic scientific or ethical standards, or does not comply with essential submission requirements may be rejected without external peer review.

Such a decision is an editorial decision and does not imply that the manuscript has undergone peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

YZIB uses a double-blind peer-review model.

Authors are expected to prepare manuscripts in a manner that reasonably protects their identity during peer review.

Reviewers should not attempt to identify authors.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed, particularly when authors have previously disseminated related work as a preprint, conference paper, thesis, repository record, or other publicly accessible scholarly output.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Each manuscript proceeding to peer review is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to:

  • expertise relevant to the manuscript;

  • scientific and methodological competence;

  • absence of relevant conflicts of interest;

  • independence from the authors and the research;

  • previous reviewing experience, where applicable; and

  • ability to provide a timely and professional assessment.

Reviewers are expected to hold a PhD degree or possess recognized expertise in the relevant field.

Members of the YZIB Editorial Board and field editors are not assigned as reviewers for submitted manuscripts.

The journal seeks independent external scholarly assessment of manuscripts.

4. Reviewer Suggestions by Authors

Where the submission system permits or the editor requests it, authors may suggest potential reviewers.

Reviewer suggestions are advisory only. The journal is under no obligation to invite suggested reviewers.

Authors must not suggest individuals whose independence may be compromised by:

  • recent collaboration;

  • close personal or professional relationships;

  • shared financial or institutional interests;

  • supervisory relationships; or

  • other relevant conflicts of interest.

The editorial office independently evaluates the suitability of all reviewers.

Manipulation of reviewer identities or contact information is considered a serious publication ethics violation.

5. Reviewer Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and associated files are confidential.

Reviewers must not:

  • share a manuscript with unauthorized individuals;

  • use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage;

  • disclose manuscript content or peer-review correspondence;

  • retain or distribute confidential material contrary to journal policy; or

  • upload manuscripts or confidential information to third-party generative AI systems where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has been completed.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.

A reviewer who cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment should decline the invitation or promptly inform the editor.

Potential conflicts are managed in accordance with YZIB's Conflict of Interest Policy.

7. Responsibilities of Reviewers

Reviewers are expected to:

  • provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive assessments;

  • evaluate the scientific quality, originality, methodology, interpretation, and relevance of the manuscript;

  • identify important limitations or methodological concerns;

  • comment on whether conclusions are adequately supported by the findings;

  • identify relevant ethical concerns where apparent;

  • alert the editor to suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, data manipulation, citation manipulation, or other possible misconduct;

  • avoid personal, discriminatory, insulting, or inappropriate comments;

  • avoid requesting irrelevant citations;

  • respect confidentiality; and

  • complete reviews within the agreed period whenever reasonably possible.

Reviewer recommendations should be supported by clear scientific reasoning.

8. Use of Artificial Intelligence by Reviewers

Peer-review materials are confidential.

Reviewers must not upload submitted manuscripts, manuscript excerpts, figures, tables, supplementary materials, or confidential editorial information to publicly accessible generative AI systems where confidentiality, copyright, intellectual property, or data protection cannot be assured.

AI-assisted tools must not replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

Any permitted use of AI-assisted technologies must comply with YZIB's AI Policy.

9. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers may consider, as appropriate:

  • originality and scientific contribution;

  • relevance to YZIB's aims and scope;

  • adequacy of the research question or objectives;

  • appropriateness of the research design and methodology;

  • adequacy of sampling and data collection;

  • appropriateness of statistical or computational analyses;

  • reliability and interpretation of findings;

  • quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials;

  • adequacy and relevance of the literature;

  • transparency and reproducibility;

  • ethical compliance;

  • clarity and scholarly quality of presentation; and

  • whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence presented.

10. Review of Supplementary Materials

Supplementary materials that are necessary for understanding, evaluating, or reproducing the scientific findings may be made available to reviewers as part of the peer-review process.

Reviewers may be asked to comment on supplementary datasets, methodological documents, appendices, code, figures, or other supporting materials where relevant.

11. Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may normally recommend one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not themselves constitute the final decision.

12. Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

If one reviewer provides a positive recommendation while another provides a negative recommendation, the editor evaluates the reports and the scientific issues raised.

The Editorial Board or responsible editor may:

  • request revision from the authors;

  • seek clarification from the reviewers;

  • invite an additional independent reviewer; or

  • make another appropriate editorial decision based on the available evaluations.

Where necessary, a third independent reviewer may be appointed.

A manuscript is accepted for publication only when at least two reviewers provide a positive evaluation and the responsible editor determines that the manuscript meets the journal's scientific and ethical publication standards.

13. Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

  • a revised manuscript; and

  • a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Where an author disagrees with a reviewer comment, the author should provide a clear scientific justification.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers when the editor considers further peer review necessary.

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

14. Editorial Decisions

Reviewer reports are advisory to the editor.

The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the responsible editor acting within the journal's editorial structure.

Editorial decisions are based on:

  • reviewer evaluations;

  • scientific quality;

  • originality;

  • methodological rigor;

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • research and publication ethics;

  • adequacy of revisions; and

  • overall contribution to the scholarly literature.

A manuscript will not be accepted solely because reviewers recommend acceptance if the editor identifies a significant scientific, ethical, or publication-integrity concern.

Similarly, editorial decisions must not be influenced by the author's academic title, institutional affiliation, nationality, reputation, or personal relationships.

15. Editorial Independence and Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

Editors, members of the Editorial Board, or individuals closely associated with YZIB may submit manuscripts to the journal, but such manuscripts receive no preferential treatment.

An editor who is an author, co-author, collaborator, or otherwise has a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript will have no role in:

  • selecting reviewers;

  • accessing confidential reviewer identities;

  • managing the peer-review process;

  • participating in editorial discussions; or

  • making the final publication decision.

The manuscript will be assigned to an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest and will undergo the same peer-review standards as other submissions.

16. Research and Publication Ethics During Peer Review

If reviewers or editors identify a potential ethical concern during peer review, the editorial process may be suspended while the issue is evaluated.

Potential concerns may include:

  • plagiarism;

  • data fabrication or falsification;

  • inappropriate image manipulation;

  • duplicate publication;

  • authorship manipulation;

  • peer-review manipulation;

  • citation manipulation;

  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;

  • absence of required ethical approval;

  • inappropriate AI use; or

  • other research-integrity concerns.

Such cases will be handled according to YZIB's Publication Ethics & Malpractice Policy and related policies.

17. Reviewer Identity and Review Reports

Reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors under the journal's double-blind peer-review model.

Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial records.

YZIB does not normally publish peer-review reports or reviewer identities alongside articles unless the journal formally adopts a different peer-review model and clearly communicates this change.

18. Appeals

Authors who believe that an editorial decision resulted from a significant factual error, methodological misunderstanding, procedural irregularity, or conflict of interest may submit an appeal in accordance with YZIB's Complaints & Appeals Policy.

Disagreement with a reviewer or dissatisfaction with a rejection decision alone does not automatically constitute grounds for reconsideration.

19. Exceptions to Peer Review

Original research articles, review articles, short articles, and scientific or technical notes intended as scholarly journal content are subject to the journal's peer-review procedures.

Content that is clearly identified as non-research editorial material, such as announcements, corrections, retraction notices, or other administrative/editorial notices, may not undergo external peer review.

Any material that represents an exception to the journal's standard peer-review process will be clearly identified where appropriate.

20. Ethical Standards for Peer Review

The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with YZIB's publication ethics policies and internationally recognized principles of responsible peer review, including relevant guidance of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

YZIB reserves the right to review and update its peer-review procedures in response to developments in scholarly publishing, research integrity, and publication ethics.