Peer Review Process

The Journal of Applied Digital Systems and Interactive Computing (JADSIC) applies a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, relevance, and scientific integrity of all manuscripts considered for publication.

All manuscripts submitted to JADSIC are evaluated through several stages, beginning with editorial screening and followed by independent peer review.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, each manuscript is first evaluated by the editorial team.

The initial screening considers:

relevance to the focus and scope of JADSIC;
completeness of the manuscript;
compliance with author guidelines;
originality and scientific contribution;
clarity of the research problem;
appropriateness of the research methodology;
quality of presentation;
ethical compliance;
similarity or plagiarism concerns.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements of the journal may be rejected before peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment proceed to the peer-review stage.

2. Peer Review Model

JADSIC applies a double-blind peer review process.

Under this model:

reviewers do not know the identity of the authors;
authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

The purpose of double-blind review is to reduce potential bias and support an objective assessment of the manuscript.

Authors are therefore expected to prepare manuscripts in a way that minimizes information that could directly reveal their identity during the review process.

3. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to qualified reviewers with expertise relevant to the topic of the submission.

The editorial team considers factors such as:

reviewer expertise;
relevance of research background;
publication experience;
absence of conflict of interest;
availability;
ability to provide an objective and constructive review.

Normally, a manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, especially when:

reviewer recommendations substantially differ;
the manuscript covers multiple disciplinary areas;
additional methodological expertise is required.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects.

Originality

The manuscript should demonstrate novelty or meaningful contribution to existing knowledge.

Relevance

The manuscript should be relevant to the focus and scope of JADSIC.

Research Problem

The research problem should be clearly identified and scientifically justified.

Literature Review

The manuscript should demonstrate an appropriate understanding of related research and relevant scholarly literature.

Methodology

The research method should be appropriate, clearly described, and sufficiently rigorous to support the study objectives.

System or Technology Development

For manuscripts involving the development of systems, applications, games, web platforms, mobile applications, frameworks, or other technologies, reviewers may assess:

development methodology;
system architecture;
design decisions;
implementation process;
technical validity;
innovation;
reproducibility where appropriate.

Evaluation

The manuscript should include appropriate evaluation of the proposed system, method, framework, application, or technology.

Evaluation may include:

functional testing;
usability evaluation;
user experience evaluation;
system performance;
experimental validation;
comparative evaluation;
statistical analysis;
expert evaluation;
user testing;
other relevant validation methods.

Results and Discussion

Results should be clearly presented and appropriately interpreted.

The discussion should relate the findings to:

research objectives;
research questions;
previous studies;
theoretical or practical implications.

Contribution

The manuscript should clearly explain its scientific, technical, theoretical, or practical contribution.

Writing and Presentation

The manuscript should be logically organized, readable, and presented in an appropriate academic style.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers may provide one of the following recommendations:

Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor based on:

reviewer reports;
quality of the manuscript;
author revisions;
journal standards;
relevance to JADSIC.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory, and the Editor remains responsible for the final decision.

6. Minor Revision

A manuscript receiving a Minor Revision decision generally requires limited changes that do not substantially alter the research design or main findings.

Examples may include:

improving explanations;
correcting formatting;
clarifying methods;
adding references;
improving figures or tables;
correcting minor inconsistencies;
strengthening discussion.

Authors are expected to respond to reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript within the specified revision period.

7. Major Revision

A Major Revision decision indicates that substantial improvements are required before the manuscript can be reconsidered.

Major revisions may involve:

substantial methodological clarification;
additional analysis;
stronger theoretical justification;
improved evaluation;
revision of results or discussion;
major restructuring;
additional comparison with previous studies;
clarification of the manuscript's contribution.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation.

A request for major revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

8. Author Response to Reviewers

Authors submitting a revised manuscript should provide a clear response to reviewer comments.

The response should indicate:

each reviewer comment;
the corresponding revision made;
the location of the revision in the manuscript;
a clear explanation when a reviewer suggestion is not adopted.

Authors are expected to respond professionally and respectfully to all reviewer comments.

9. Re-Review Process

Revised manuscripts may undergo additional rounds of peer review.

The editorial team may send the revised manuscript:

to the original reviewers;
to additional reviewers;
or directly to the Editor for assessment,

depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Multiple review rounds may be conducted when necessary to ensure that the manuscript meets the publication standards of JADSIC.

10. Editorial Decision

Following peer review, the Editor may issue one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is accepted for publication.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections before final acceptance.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial revision and further evaluation.

Reject

The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards or is not suitable for publication.

The editorial decision is communicated to the corresponding author through the OJS submission system.

11. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JADSIC are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

share manuscripts with unauthorized persons;
distribute manuscript content;
use unpublished ideas, data, or information for personal benefit;
disclose confidential information obtained during the review process.

Editors are also responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of manuscripts and reviewer identities.

12. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their ability to provide an impartial review.

Potential conflicts may include:

personal relationships;
institutional relationships;
research collaborations;
academic competition;
financial interests;
professional relationships;
other circumstances that could affect objectivity.

Reviewers should decline the review assignment when a significant conflict of interest exists.

13. Reviewer Ethics

Reviewers are expected to provide:

objective evaluations;
constructive criticism;
evidence-based recommendations;
respectful comments;
timely review reports.

Personal criticism of authors is not appropriate.

Review comments should focus on improving the quality, clarity, validity, and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

14. Similarity and Plagiarism Screening

Submitted manuscripts may undergo similarity screening before or during the peer-review process.

If substantial similarity or suspected plagiarism is identified, the editorial team may:

request clarification;
return the manuscript for correction;
reject the manuscript;
conduct further investigation.

Similarity scores are evaluated in context and are not used as the sole basis for determining plagiarism.

15. Review of System Development Research

Because JADSIC publishes research involving digital systems, software, games, mobile applications, web applications, and interactive technologies, manuscripts describing system development are expected to go beyond implementation alone.

Reviewers may evaluate whether the study includes:

a clearly defined problem;
appropriate development methodology;
technical or scientific novelty;
system design and architecture;
implementation details;
systematic evaluation;
meaningful analysis;
measurable results;
clear research contribution.

A manuscript that only reports the creation of an application without adequate scientific evaluation may not be considered sufficient for publication.

16. Review of Human-Computer Interaction and User Experience Research

For manuscripts involving HCI, usability, user experience, or player experience, reviewers may consider:

appropriateness of participants;
validity of evaluation instruments;
study design;
usability methods;
UX measurement;
statistical or qualitative analysis;
interpretation of findings;
ethical treatment of participants.

17. Review of Artificial Intelligence Research

For manuscripts involving artificial intelligence, machine learning, or intelligent systems, reviewers may evaluate:

dataset quality;
model selection;
experimental design;
training and testing procedures;
evaluation metrics;
baseline comparison;
reproducibility;
interpretation of results;
limitations;
ethical considerations.

18. Review of Game and Interactive Technology Research

For manuscripts involving games and interactive systems, reviewers may assess:

game mechanics;
gameplay design;
interaction design;
player experience;
usability;
system performance;
evaluation methodology;
technical implementation;
contribution to game or interactive computing research.

19. Review Timeline

JADSIC aims to conduct the peer-review process efficiently while maintaining the quality of evaluation.

The duration of the review process may vary depending on:

availability of reviewers;
complexity of the manuscript;
number of revision rounds;
responsiveness of authors and reviewers.

Authors can monitor the status of their manuscripts through the OJS submission system.

20. Final Acceptance

A manuscript is considered formally accepted only after:

all required revisions have been completed;
reviewer concerns have been adequately addressed;
the Editor approves the final manuscript;
the manuscript satisfies the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

Following acceptance, the manuscript proceeds to the production stage, which may include:

copyediting;
layout editing;
proofreading;
metadata verification;
final publication preparation.

21. Review Process Summary

The general peer-review workflow of JADSIC is:

Submission → Editorial Screening → Similarity Check → Reviewer Assignment → Double-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Revision → Re-Review if Required → Final Decision → Copyediting → Production → Publication