Peer Review Process

NEXCORE: Journal of Computer Science & Intelligent Systems applies a rigorous, objective, transparent, and internationally standardized peer review process to ensure the scientific quality of all published articles.

1. Peer Review Model

NEXCORE adopts a:

Double-Blind Peer Review

In this system:

  • The reviewers do not know the authors' identities

  • The authors do not know the reviewers' identities

This model ensures objectivity, independence, and prevents conflicts of interest.

2. Review Process Stages

Stage 1 — Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts through the NEXCORE Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform in accordance with the journal template and author guidelines.

Stage 2 — Initial Editorial Screening

The editor conducts an initial assessment focusing on:

  • Relevance to the journal's aims and scope

  • Compliance with the journal template and guidelines

  • Completeness of metadata

  • Plagiarism screening (using Turnitin/iThenticate)

Manuscripts exceeding the similarity threshold (maximum 20%) will be returned or rejected.

Stage 3 — Reviewer Assignment

The editor assigns at least two independent reviewers with expertise aligned to the manuscript topic.

Reviewers are selected from:

  • Academics

  • Researchers

  • Professional practitioners

With a minimum qualification of a doctoral degree or a strong publication record in the relevant field.

Stage 4 — Review Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and scientific contribution

  • Relevance to computer science and intelligent systems

  • Methodological rigor

  • Clarity of analysis and discussion

  • Novelty

  • Quality of references and citations

Reviewers provide recommendations:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Stage 5 — Editorial Decision

The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers' reports, considering:

  • Consistency of evaluations

  • Scientific quality

  • Compliance with publication ethics

The final decision is independent and objective.

Stage 6 — Author Revision

Authors must respond to all reviewer comments and submit:

  • Revised manuscript

  • Response to reviewers letter

Stage 7 — Final Decision

The editor verifies the revised manuscript and issues the final decision:

  • Accepted

  • Rejected

Stage 8 — Copyediting and Layout

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Copyediting

  • Proofreading

  • Layout editing

Prior to official publication.

3. Review Timeline

Average review timeline:

  • Initial screening: 5–7 working days

  • Peer review: 2–4 weeks

  • Author revision: 1–3 weeks

  • Final decision: 3–5 working days

Estimated total processing time: 4–8 weeks

4. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are required to:

  • Maintain confidentiality

  • Conduct objective and professional assessments

  • Avoid conflicts of interest

  • Provide constructive feedback

5. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are treated as confidential documents and are only accessible to:

  • Editors

  • Assigned reviewers

  • Corresponding authors

6. Dispute Resolution

In case of significant ?????? of opinion between reviewers, the editor may:

  • Appoint an additional reviewer

  • Conduct an independent editorial assessment

The editor’s decision is final.

This peer review process is designed in accordance with international best practices in scholarly publishing and the guidelines of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).