The International Journal of Research in Artificial Intelligence and Data Science (IJRAIDS) relies on the expertise, integrity, and dedication of peer reviewers to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing. Our peer review process is double-blind and rigorous, ensuring the publication of innovative, accurate, and impactful research in the fields of artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, and allied disciplines. As a reviewer, your feedback contributes directly to the quality, clarity, and credibility of the journal’s content. Below are the key guidelines reviewers are expected to follow when evaluating submitted manuscripts.

1. Maintain Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat the manuscript and all associated materials as confidential documents. Do not share, distribute, or discuss the manuscript content with others unless approved by the editor. Confidentiality should be maintained before, during, and after the review process. Any unauthorized use of the material or ideas is strictly prohibited.

2. Conduct a Thorough and Objective Evaluation

Each manuscript should be reviewed objectively and constructively. Criticism should be based on evidence and aimed at improving the manuscript. Avoid personal or biased remarks. Focus on the manuscript's scientific merit, originality, methodology, presentation, and contribution to the field of AI and data science.

3. Assess the Manuscript’s Originality and Significance

Evaluate whether the research presents novel insights, methods, or findings. Reviewers should determine if the work advances current knowledge or practices in artificial intelligence, machine learning, or data science. The manuscript should not replicate previously published work without adding substantial value.

4. Examine the Methodology and Technical Accuracy

Carefully analyze whether the research methods, models, and experiments are appropriate and sufficiently described. Consider if the datasets used are relevant, the results are reproducible, and statistical analyses are valid. Identify any technical flaws, inconsistencies, or gaps in logic.

5. Evaluate the Quality of Writing and Presentation

Assess whether the manuscript is clearly written, well-organized, and free from grammatical errors. Check if the figures, tables, and references support the text and enhance understanding. If the language impedes comprehension, recommend language editing. Suggest specific improvements to structure or clarity where needed.

6. Check for Ethical Compliance and Plagiarism

Confirm that the manuscript adheres to ethical research standards, including proper treatment of data, informed consent where applicable, and appropriate citation of previous work. Report any signs of plagiarism, data fabrication, or duplicate publication to the editor immediately.

7. Provide Constructive and Actionable Feedback

Reviewers should offer detailed, actionable suggestions for improvement. Clearly differentiate between major issues that require significant revision and minor ones that can be easily addressed. Always frame feedback in a respectful and professional tone that supports the author’s development.

8. Respect Review Deadlines and Communicate Delays Promptly

Timely reviews are essential to the efficiency of the publication process. Reviewers are typically given 2–3 weeks to complete their assessments. If more time is needed, promptly notify the editor. If you are unable to review a submission due to time constraints or conflict of interest, inform the editorial office at the earliest.

9. Declare Conflicts of Interest

Disclose any personal, financial, or professional conflicts of interest that may bias your judgment. If you are affiliated with the authors or have collaborated with them in the past, recuse yourself from the review to maintain the integrity of the process.

10. Recommend a Clear Editorial Decision

Based on your evaluation, select one of the following recommendations:

• Accept as is
• Accept with Minor Revisions
• Request Major Revisions and Resubmission
• Reject with Reasoned Justification

Support your recommendation with a concise summary explaining your reasoning. Editors will consider your comments along with other reviews in making the final decision.

Note:

IJRAIDS deeply appreciates the time, effort, and scholarly expertise that reviewers bring to the peer-review process. We recognize the crucial role reviewers play in maintaining the academic integrity of our journal. Your contribution not only strengthens individual publications but also advances the broader research community in artificial intelligence and data science. Reviewers who consistently demonstrate excellence may be invited to join the editorial board or receive acknowledgment in journal communications.

By following these guidelines, you help ensure that IJRAIDS remains a trusted platform for high-quality, open-access research. Thank you for your commitment to advancing science and knowledge through ethical and informed peer review.