Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

Thank you for contributing your time and expertise to the Journal of Machine Intelligence for Sustainable Industry Practices (JMISIP). Peer review is central to maintaining the quality, credibility, and integrity of everything we publish. These guidelines outline what is expected of reviewers and how to conduct an effective, fair review.

Before You Accept a Review Invitation

  • Confirm you have relevant subject-matter expertise to evaluate the manuscript competently.
  • Confirm you can complete the review within the requested timeframe (typically 3–4 weeks).
  • Check for any conflict of interest (see Reviewer Ethics below) that would prevent you from reviewing impartially. If one exists, decline and, where possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • If you are unable to review, please decline promptly so the editorial team can identify another reviewer without unnecessary delay.

What to Evaluate

Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts across the following dimensions:

  1. Originality and Contribution — Does the work offer a genuine, meaningful contribution to the field? Is it sufficiently novel relative to existing published research?
  2. Fit with Journal Scope — Does the manuscript align with JMISIP's Aims and Scope (machine intelligence applied to sustainability, industry, and management)?
  3. Methodological Rigor — Are the methods appropriate, clearly described, and sound? For ML/AI studies, is there sufficient detail on data, model architecture, training, and evaluation to support scrutiny?
  4. Validity of Conclusions — Do the results support the conclusions drawn? Are limitations honestly acknowledged?
  5. For Applied/Case-Study Submissions — Is the real-world implementation context clearly described? Are reported outcomes credible, well-evidenced, and clearly distinguished from projected or hypothetical results?
  6. Clarity and Structure — Is the manuscript well organized and clearly written? Are figures/tables necessary and legible?
  7. Ethical Compliance — Are there any concerns regarding data ethics, human/animal subjects approval, conflicts of interest, or potential plagiarism?

Writing Your Review

  • Structure your comments clearly, ideally separated into: summary of the work, major concerns, and minor concerns.
  • Be specific and constructive. Point to exact sections, figures, or claims rather than making general statements.
  • Support criticism with reasoning — "this claim is not adequately supported" is more useful than "this is wrong."
  • Avoid personal or dismissive language. Critique the work, not the author.
  • Recommend one of: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject, with reasoning that clearly supports your recommendation.
  • Confidential comments to the editor (not shared with authors) can be used to flag concerns about ethics, conflicts of interest, or suspected misconduct.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or distribute manuscript content with anyone outside the review process, and do not upload manuscript content to AI tools or any third-party platform (see Use of Artificial Intelligence policy).

Recognition

Reviewers who consent may be publicly acknowledged in an annual reviewer recognition list published by the journal.