For Reviewers

The following guidelines are intended to make experts aware of their responsibilities as well as benefits of being reviewers for JACS and help them complete the assigned review work correctly and efficiently.

Benefits of Reviewers

  • Reviewers play an important role in maintaining high-quality peer review and help authors improve their papers by providing professional expertise; reviewers' awareness of the current research frontiers in algorithms and complex systems can also be expanded in turn;
  • An official reviewer certificate is provided upon request;
  • Reviewers are included in the journal's Annual Acknowledgment of Reviewers;
  • Reviewers can add their review comments to Publons (or Web of Science) for the journals they reviewed and receive recognition for their review work.

Peer Review Model

All manuscripts accepted by the journal undergo rigorous single-blind peer review, in which the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author(s). For more details about the review process, please refer to the Editorial Process page.

Ethics of Peer Review

Reviewers must comply with the following ethical regulations; any misconduct in peer review will be investigated seriously.

Potential Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must declare all potential conflicts of interest that may bias the review report either positively or negatively. Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript if they have any conflicts of interest with their own research. Conflicts of interest may be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious in nature.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must keep all contents of the manuscript strictly confidential and must not use any information obtained during the peer review process for their own or others' advantage. They should not reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in the metadata of reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format.

Report Misconduct

Reviewers should promptly report to the journal Editor any potential research or publication misconduct, such as plagiarism, breaches of research ethics, or simultaneous submission to multiple journals. Reviewers should cooperate with the journal in confidence but should not personally investigate further unless requested by the Editor.

Unbiased Comments

Reviewers must remain completely unbiased regardless of the authors’ nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religious or political beliefs, or other characteristics.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to respond to review invitations and submit their review reports in a timely manner. If an extension is needed, reviewers should contact the Editor promptly. Similarly, reviewers should inform the Editor as soon as possible if they lack the adequate expertise to assess the manuscript.

Rating Standards of Peer Review

Reviewers are expected to assess the following aspects of a manuscript:

Overall Merit

Does the work provide a clear advance in the field of algorithms or complex systems? Is there an overall benefit to publishing this research?

Novelty

Does the manuscript report novel algorithms, methods, or theoretical insights? Does it create a meaningful advance in current knowledge of complex systems?

Originality and Importance

Are the results original? Are the conclusions justified and well supported by the data? Are the contributions significant to the algorithms and complex systems community?

Clarity and Context

Is the abstract clear and accessible? Are the introduction, methodology, and conclusions appropriate and well-structured?

Key Results

Are the key results clearly presented and supported by appropriate data or proofs?

Data & Methodology

Is the methodology described in sufficient detail to allow reproduction? Are the algorithms, proofs, or computational methods clearly explained and technically sound?

Appropriate Use of Mathematics and Statistics

Are the mathematical formulations, complexity analyses, and statistical methods (if any) appropriate and correctly applied?

Conclusions

Are the conclusions robust, valid, and a reasonable extension of the results presented?

Quality of Presentation

Is the article clearly written? Are the data, figures, tables, and algorithms presented at a high standard?

Validity

Does the manuscript have major flaws that should prohibit its publication? If so, please provide specific details.

Ethics

Does the study comply with standard ethical guidelines (COPE)? Has proper citation and attribution been given to prior work?

English Level

Is the English language clear, grammatically correct, and suitable for an international academic audience?

Please indicate any particular part of the manuscript that falls outside your expertise. If you become aware of scientific misconduct, plagiarism, or any unethical behavior, please raise these concerns with the Editor immediately.

All statements in the review report should be justified with detailed arguments, citing supporting references where appropriate.

Review reports should contain:

  • A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper and its main contributions.
  • Broad comments highlighting strengths and weaknesses. Constructive criticism should be specific and numbered for clarity.
  • Concluding comments (visible only to the Editor) summarizing the final recommendation and its rationale.

Overall Recommendation

Please provide an overall recommendation for the manuscript (visible only to Editors, not to authors):

  • Accept in Present Form: The paper is accepted without any further changes.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is in principle accepted after small revisions based on the reviewer’s comments.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance depends on substantial revisions. The author must provide a point-by-point response.
  • Rejection: The manuscript has serious flaws or makes no sufficient original contribution.

Note that your recommendation is visible only to journal Editors, not to the authors.