Peer review is the foundation of scholarly quality at the Journal of Computers, Mechanical and Management. The journal is grateful to its reviewers, whose careful, timely, and constructive assessments make rigorous publication possible. This page sets out what is expected of reviewers and what reviewers can expect from the journal.
The journal applies an asymmetric peer-review model that distinguishes between general submissions and submissions authored by members of the editorial team or the active reviewer pool. This asymmetry is intentional and is designed to apply stricter review precisely where the conflict-of-interest risk is highest.
The journal's full peer review process is described on the Peer Review Policy page.
A useful review addresses, at minimum, the following dimensions of the manuscript:
Reviewers conclude their report with one of the following recommendations:
The handling editor is responsible for the final decision and may decide differently from the recommendation, weighing all reviews and the manuscript's overall suitability.
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where they have a competing interest with the authors, including but not limited to:
Where a conflict is identified, the reviewer should decline the invitation and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer. Where a conflict is identified after a review has commenced, the reviewer should notify the handling editor immediately.
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts under review to public or third-party AI tools, including general-purpose large language models such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or comparable services. Such uploads constitute a breach of confidentiality and may also expose the manuscript to use in model training. The journal's full position on AI use by reviewers is on the AI Use Policy for Reviewers page.
Reviewers are asked to complete reviews within three weeks of accepting an invitation. Where more time is needed, reviewers should inform the handling editor as early as possible so that the timeline can be adjusted or alternative arrangements made. Reviewers who consistently meet deadlines are flagged in the journal's reviewer pool as preferred reviewers and are considered for service on the editorial team.
Reviews are most useful when they are specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers should focus on the work, not the author, and should phrase critique in a way that helps the author improve the manuscript. Reviews that are dismissive, derogatory, or that target the author's identity are not acceptable and may be rejected by the handling editor.
On completion of each review, the journal's editorial system sends the reviewer an automated acknowledgement email recording the manuscript identifier and the date of review completion. Reviewers may use this email as evidence of their service. Reviewers can also self-record their reviews on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition platform, with the journal able to confirm a completed review on request. Full details, including the journal's commitment to expand reviewer recognition over time, are on the Reviewer Recognition page.
The journal's Article Processing Charge will move from USD 250 to USD 1,000 for manuscripts submitted from 1 October 2026 onwards. Submissions received on or before 30 September 2026 (23:59 UTC) will continue to be processed at USD 250. A tiered waiver scheme based on the World Bank country classification applies from 1 October 2026.
