Reviewer Ethics

 

Reviewers for the Journal of Computer and Data Science (JCODA) are expected to uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, fairness, confidentiality, independence, professionalism, and respect throughout the peer-review process.

1. Objectivity and Fairness

Reviewers must provide impartial evaluations based on the scientific quality, methodological rigor, originality, and scholarly contribution of the manuscript. Personal opinions, relationships, or assumptions about the authors must not influence the review.

2. Professional Conduct

Review comments must be respectful, professional, specific, and constructive. Offensive, discriminatory, humiliating, or unnecessarily aggressive language is unacceptable. Feedback should help authors understand the strengths, limitations, and areas requiring improvement in their manuscripts.

3. Recognition of Sources

Reviewers should identify relevant published research that has not been adequately acknowledged or cited. Recommendations to include additional references must be justified by their genuine scholarly relevance and contribution to the manuscript.

4. No Citation Manipulation

Reviewers must not request unnecessary citations to their own publications, the publications of colleagues, or articles from the journal solely to increase citation counts, impact indicators, or journal metrics. All citation recommendations must be supported by clear academic reasons.

5. No Misuse of Unpublished Information

Reviewers must not use ideas, data, methods, results, or other unpublished information obtained through peer review for personal, research, financial, or professional advantage. Such information must remain confidential and must not be exploited without appropriate authorization.

6. Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor of credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, manipulated citations, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other forms of research and publication misconduct. Concerns should be communicated objectively and supported by relevant evidence where possible.

7. Reviewer Independence

Reviewers must conduct their assessments independently and disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest. Personal relationships, academic competition, institutional affiliations, financial interests, or other external influences must not compromise the objectivity of their evaluations. Reviewers who cannot provide an impartial assessment should notify the editor.

8. Accountability

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers acknowledge their responsibility to provide a careful, timely, ethical, and academically meaningful assessment. Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts within the agreed timeframe and communicate promptly with the editor if delays or other circumstances affect their ability to complete the review.