Reviewer Guidelines

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's review model

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.

  • General submissions undergo single-blind external peer review: the reviewer's identity is concealed from the author, while the author's identity is visible to the reviewer. Each manuscript receives a minimum of two external reviews, and the handling editor seeks a third review where the first two reach divergent recommendations.
  • Editorial submissions, defined as manuscripts on which one or more authors holds an editorial role with the journal or is in the active reviewer pool, undergo double-blind external peer review: both reviewer and author identities are concealed from each other. Editorial submissions are also handled by an independent editor outside the author's reporting line, with the author-editor fully recused from the editorial workflow. Full details are on the Editorial Submissions Policy and Editorial Independence pages.

The journal's full peer review process is described on the Peer Review Policy page.

What to evaluate

A useful review addresses, at minimum, the following dimensions of the manuscript:

  • Originality and significance. Does the manuscript present a meaningful contribution? Has the work been published elsewhere?
  • Scope-fit. Does the manuscript fall within the journal's Aims and Scope?
  • Methodological soundness. Are the methods appropriate, well-described, and sufficient to support the conclusions?
  • Results and analysis. Are the results clearly presented, statistically (where applicable) sound, and well-interpreted?
  • Discussion and conclusions. Are the conclusions justified by the evidence presented?
  • Ethical compliance. Are required ethical declarations present? Are there concerns about plagiarism, image manipulation, or fabrication?
  • Reporting quality. Is the manuscript clearly written, well-structured, and complete?
  • References. Are the references appropriate, current, and complete?
  • Data availability. Does the manuscript include a Data Availability Statement consistent with the journal's Data Availability Policy?

Recommendation categories

Reviewers conclude their report with one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, possibly with editorial copyediting only.
  • Minor revisions: the manuscript is suitable for publication after limited author edits not requiring re-review.
  • Major revisions: the manuscript has merit but requires substantial rework before a publication decision can be made; the revised version will be returned to the same reviewers.
  • Reject: the manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal in its current form.
  • Reject and resubmit: the manuscript has potential but requires fundamental rework that amounts to a new submission.

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.

Conflicts of interest

Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where they have a competing interest with the authors, including but not limited to:

  • Recent co-authorship (within five years);
  • Shared institutional affiliation at the time of the work or at present;
  • Doctoral supervisory or supervisee relationship;
  • Personal relationship that could reasonably be perceived to compromise impartiality;
  • Financial interest in the outcome of the work;
  • Recent or current dispute with one of the authors.

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.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:

  • Not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents to anyone outside the review process, including colleagues, students, or social-media platforms;
  • Not use information from a manuscript for personal advantage or for the advantage of others, prior to publication;
  • Not retain copies of the manuscript after submitting the review;
  • Where consultation with a colleague is necessary, for example on a specialist methodological point, seek explicit permission from the handling editor in advance.

Use of AI tools by reviewers

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.

Timeliness

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.

Tone and constructiveness

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.

Recognition

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.