Peer Review Policy

The Scientific Journal of Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies, published by ResaGate Global, is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and integrity in its publications. To ensure impartial and objective evaluation, the journal follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

Key Features of the Double-Blind Peer Review Process:

  1. Anonymity:

    • Authors: Authors’ identities and affiliations are not disclosed to reviewers.
    • Reviewers: Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to authors.
    • Manuscripts are anonymized before being sent to reviewers to eliminate bias and ensure a fair evaluation.

  2. Reviewer Selection:

    • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the submitted manuscript.
    • The editorial team ensures that reviewers have no conflict of interest with the authors or their institutions.

  3. Evaluation Criteria: Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

    • Originality and significance of the research.
    • Relevance to the scope of the journal.
    • Methodological rigor and clarity.
    • Validity and accuracy of data analysis and interpretation.
    • Contribution to the field of artificial intelligence and blockchain technologies.
    • Clarity and organization of the manuscript.

  4. Process Timeline:

    • Upon submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial review for scope and formatting compliance.
    • Suitable manuscripts are sent to two or more reviewers for evaluation.
    • The review process typically takes 4–6 weeks, depending on the complexity of the manuscript and reviewer availability.

  5. Reviewer Recommendations: Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

    • Accept as is.
    • Minor revisions required.
    • Major revisions required.
    • Reject.

  6. Decision-Making:

    • The Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewers’ comments and recommendations, makes the final decision regarding the manuscript.
    • In case of conflicting reviewer feedback, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer or referred to the editorial board.

  7. Communication with Authors:

    • Authors receive constructive feedback, whether the manuscript is accepted, requires revision, or is rejected.
    • For revisions, authors must address reviewers’ comments point-by-point and resubmit the revised manuscript within the stipulated timeframe.

  8. Ethical Considerations:

    • Reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality regarding the content of the manuscript.
    • The journal ensures that the peer review process adheres to ethical guidelines as per COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards.

Benefits of Double-Blind Peer Review:

  • Ensures unbiased and fair evaluation.
  • Promotes objective feedback focused on the quality of research rather than the author’s identity.
  • Upholds the credibility and academic rigor of the journal.