Peer Review Policy

1. Publishing Standards and Guidelines

Innovative Computing Perspectives (ICP)‌ adheres to the following internationally recognized guidelines and standards for academic integrity and research transparency:

‌Ethical and Editorial Frameworks‌

  • ‌Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)‌
  • ‌Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Code of Ethics‌
  • ‌Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Publications Standards‌
  • ‌National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)‌
  • ‌FAIR Principles for Data Management‌ (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable)
  • ‌Global Alliance for Genomics and Health (GA4GH)‌ (for computational biology integration)

‌Research Reporting Guidelines‌

  • ‌Algorithm Development‌: CRISP-DM (Cross-Industry Standard Process for Data Mining)
  • ‌Artificial Intelligence/Machine Learning Studies‌: TRIPOD-ML (Transparent Reporting for AI/ML Predictive Models)
  • ‌Software Engineering‌: IEEE Standards for Software Documentation (e.g., IEEE 1016)
  • ‌Cybersecurity Research‌: NIST SP 800-53 (Security and Privacy Controls)
  • ‌Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)‌: ACM SIGCHI Reporting Standards
  • ‌Quantum Computing‌: Q# Language Specification and Benchmarking Guidelines
  • ‌Data Science‌: FAIR Data Principles and Open Data Protocols
  • ‌System Design & Implementation‌: ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288 (Systems Engineering Standards)
  • ‌Ethical AI‌: FATML Principles (Fairness, Accountability, Transparency)

‌Specialized Research Types‌

  • ‌Open-Source Software Releases‌: OSI (Open Source Initiative) Licensing Compliance
  • ‌Case Studies in Computing‌: ACM Case Study Reporting Framework
  • ‌Computational Reproducibility‌: ACM Artifact Review and Badging
  • ‌Big Data Analytics‌: GDPR/CCPA Compliance for Data Privacy

‌Key Commitments‌

  1. ‌Ethical Oversight‌: Rigorous peer review via double-blind processes and plagiarism screening using iThenticate.
  2. ‌Transparency‌: Mandatory sharing of code, datasets, and computational tools on platforms like GitHub, Zenodo, or IEEE DataPort.
  3. ‌Interdisciplinary Alignment‌: Compliance with domain-specific standards when integrating computing into fields like healthcare (HL7/FHIR) or climate science (IPCC Data Guidelines).
  4. ‌Open Access‌: Immediate free access under Creative Commons licenses (CC BY 4.0), aligned with Plan S principles.

2. Type of Peer Review

ICP operates double anonymized peer review, in which the referees remain anonymous to the author (s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author (s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

3. Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

The editorial team ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research.

4. Review Process

4.1 Submission and Initial Assessment

Upon submission, manuscripts are checked by the editorial office for adherence to the journal’s scope, formatting guidelines, and basic quality standards.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these criteria may be returned to the authors without further review.

4.2 iThenticate Detection

All manuscripts will be checked for plagiarism by iThenticate, and manuscripts that do not meet the requirements will be rejected.

4.3 Editorial Screening

The manuscript is reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Board Member to determine its suitability for peer review.

The editor evaluates the originality, relevance, and scientific merit of the work. Manuscripts deemed unsuitable are rejected at this stage.

4.4 Peer Review Assignment

Suitable manuscripts are assigned to two or more expert reviewers who possess the relevant knowledge and expertise in the subject area.

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript’s originality, scientific validity, ,methodology, significance, and clarity. They also provide recommendations on acceptance, revision, or rejection.

4.5 Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to make one of the following decisions:

Accept: The manuscript is accepted without revisions.

Minor Revision: Authors are asked to address minor issues before acceptance.

Major Revision: Substantial revisions are required; the revised manuscript may undergo re-review.

Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or scope.

A detailed decision letter is sent to the authors, including the reviewers’ feedback.

4.6 Revisions

Authors are given a specified timeframe to submit a revised manuscript addressing the reviewers’ and editor’s comments.

The revised manuscript is reviewed by the editor and, if necessary, sent back to the original or new reviewers for further evaluation.

4.7 Final Decision

After all revisions have been satisfactorily addressed, the editor makes a final decision on the manuscript’s acceptance.

Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting and production.

4.8 Appeals

Authors who disagree with a rejection decision may submit an appeal.

Appeals are reviewed by a senior editor or an independent reviewer, and the final decision is communicated to the authors.

4.9 Production

Once a manuscript is accepted for publication, it enters the production phase.

5. Confidentiality

All submitted manuscripts and correspondence are treated as confidential.

Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or discussing manuscripts with anyone outside the review process.

6. Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and decline the review if a conflict exists.

Editors will ensure that the peer-review process remains unbiased and impartial.

7. Appeals and Re-reviews

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed justification. Appeals will be reviewed by a senior editor or additional reviewers.

Revised manuscripts may be subjected to re-review by the original or new reviewers.

8. Ethical Standards

ICP adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines for ethical peer-review practices.

Any ethical concerns raised during peer review, such as plagiarism or data manipulation, will be investigated thoroughly.

9. Transparency and Accountability

The journal maintains detailed records of the peer-review process for all manuscripts.

Editors and reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and respectful feedback to authors.

By adhering to this peer-review policy, ICP ensures the publication of high-quality and ethically sound research that advances scientific knowledge.