eISSN: 3087-4262 editor@aimjournals.com
All Journals
Submit your article

Peer Review Policy

International Journal of Intelligent Data and Machine Learning (IJIDML)

The International Journal of Intelligent Data and Machine Learning (IJIDML) is committed to maintaining high academic standards through a rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review process. Peer review is a critical component in ensuring the quality, validity, and originality of published research.

1. Type of Peer Review

IJIDML follows a double-blind peer review process, in which:

  • The identities of the authors are concealed from the reviewers

  • The identities of the reviewers are concealed from the authors

This approach ensures impartial evaluation based solely on the scholarly merit of the manuscript.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the editorial team to assess:

  • Relevance to the journal’s scope

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Compliance with submission guidelines

  • Ethical standards and plagiarism check

Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be rejected without external review.

3. Reviewer Selection

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript

  • Reviewers must have no conflicts of interest with the authors or the research

  • The journal maintains a diverse and qualified reviewer pool from academia and industry

4. Review Process

  • Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent reviewers

  • Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

    • Originality and novelty

    • Technical quality and methodological rigor

    • Clarity of presentation

    • Relevance to intelligent data analytics and machine learning

    • Validity of results and conclusions

  • Reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback and recommendations

5. Review Timeline

  • Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the specified timeframe

  • Authors are informed promptly of review outcomes

  • Delays, if any, are communicated transparently to authors

6. Editorial Decision

Based on reviewer reports, the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor may make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions)

  • Reject

The final decision rests with the editorial board and is based on academic merit and reviewer recommendations.

7. Revision and Re-review

  • Authors must respond to all reviewer comments clearly and respectfully

  • Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation

  • Failure to address reviewer concerns adequately may result in rejection

8. Confidentiality

  • All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential documents

  • Reviewers must not share or use manuscript content for personal or professional advantage

9. Conflict of Interest

  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline review assignments if necessary

  • Editors recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where conflicts exist

10. Ethical Oversight

The editorial team follows the ethical guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Any concerns regarding misconduct, bias, or unethical behavior during the review process are investigated thoroughly.

11. Appeals and Complaints

  • Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a justified request to the editorial office

  • Complaints regarding the peer review process are handled fairly and transparently