Peer Review Policy

The World Journal of Future Technologies in Computer Science and Engineering (WJFTCSE) follows a structured, transparent, and academically rigorous peer review process to ensure the publication of original, reliable, and high-quality scholarly research. The journal is committed to fairness, confidentiality, editorial independence, research integrity, and ethical publication practices.

Type of Review

WJFTCSE primarily employs a double-blind peer review process. Under this system, the identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are concealed from authors throughout the review process.

This model is designed to promote impartial evaluation and reduce potential bias related to author identity, institutional affiliation, nationality, gender, academic status, or professional background. Each manuscript is assessed on the basis of its originality, technical merit, scientific quality, methodological strength, relevance, clarity, and contribution to the field.

Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, every manuscript undergoes preliminary editorial screening before being sent for external review. The editorial office examines whether the submission is suitable for the journal and meets basic scholarly and ethical requirements.

Relevance to the aims and scope of WJFTCSE.
Originality and contribution to knowledge.
Compliance with author guidelines and formatting requirements.
Basic quality of language, structure, figures, tables, and references.
Plagiarism, similarity, and ethical compliance.
Suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum editorial standards may be returned to authors or rejected without external review.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected from a qualified pool of academicians, researchers, scientists, engineers, and subject specialists with expertise relevant to the manuscript topic. Selection is based on academic qualifications, publication record, research experience, subject knowledge, reviewing experience, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, timely, and evidence-based feedback. They must evaluate manuscripts independently and must not allow personal, institutional, commercial, political, or professional bias to influence their review.

Review Duration

WJFTCSE aims to complete the peer review process within a reasonable timeframe, generally within approximately four weeks from submission or from successful editorial screening. However, the actual duration may vary depending on the complexity of the manuscript, reviewer availability, revision requirements, and the need for additional expert evaluation.

If additional time is required, the editorial office may inform authors and continue the review process without compromising academic quality or review integrity.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts using clearly defined academic and technical criteria, including:

Originality: The manuscript should present new findings, innovative concepts, novel frameworks, or meaningful advancements in computer science, engineering, artificial intelligence, or future technologies.
Scientific Rigor: The research design, methods, analysis, experiments, simulations, or technical approach should be sound, appropriate, and reproducible where applicable.
Clarity and Structure: The manuscript should be well organized, clearly written, logically presented, and understandable to the intended academic audience.
Relevance: The manuscript should align with the journal scope and contribute to future technologies in computer science and engineering.
Technical Quality: The work should demonstrate valid technical reasoning, proper implementation, accurate interpretation, and reliable presentation of results.
Ethical Compliance: The manuscript must comply with plagiarism, authorship, AI-use, data integrity, conflict of interest, and research ethics policies.
References and Citation Quality: Citations should be accurate, relevant, current, and properly formatted.

Decision Categories

After peer review, the editorial team may issue one of the following decisions based on reviewer recommendations and editorial judgment:

Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with no or only minor editorial corrections.
Minor Revisions: The manuscript requires limited changes related to clarity, formatting, explanation, references, or presentation.
Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial improvement before it can be reconsidered for publication.
Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript may be reconsidered after significant revision and may undergo another round of peer review.
Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's scholarly, technical, ethical, or scope requirements.

The Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor holds final responsibility for publication decisions.

Revision Process

When revisions are requested, authors must carefully address all reviewer and editorial comments. Revised submissions should include a clear point-by-point response explaining how each comment has been addressed or, where appropriate, providing a scholarly justification for not making a suggested change.

Revised manuscripts may be evaluated by the editorial office or returned to reviewers for further assessment. Failure to submit revisions within the required timeframe may result in withdrawal or closure of the submission.

Appeals

Authors may submit an appeal if they believe that a decision was based on factual error, misunderstanding, or procedural irregularity. Appeals must be submitted in writing and must include a clear explanation, supporting evidence, and reference to the specific concerns being challenged.

Appeals are reviewed by the editorial leadership or an independent editorial panel where appropriate. The final decision after appeal rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial communications, and unpublished research materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not share, copy, distribute, disclose, or use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, commercial, or professional advantage.

Confidentiality applies before, during, and after completion of the peer review process.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that could affect impartial judgment. Conflicts may include personal relationships, institutional connections, research collaborations, financial interests, professional competition, or prior involvement with the manuscript.

If a conflict exists, the reviewer or editor must recuse themselves from handling the submission.

Ethical Standards

All authors, reviewers, and editors involved in the peer review process are expected to uphold high standards of publication ethics and scholarly integrity. Suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, duplicate submission, inappropriate authorship, citation manipulation, undisclosed AI-generated content, or unethical review practices may be investigated by the journal.

Where misconduct is confirmed, WJFTCSE may reject, withdraw, correct, or retract the manuscript or published article in accordance with recognized publication ethics practices.

Peer Review Policy