Peer Review Process
All submissions to JICAI undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process: author identities are concealed from reviewers, and reviewer identities are concealed from authors.
- Initial (Editorial) Screening. Upon submission, the editorial office checks scope fit, formatting compliance against the JICAI template and runs a plagiarism similarity check (threshold: see Plagiarism Screening Policy). Manuscripts failing this stage are returned to the author or rejected without peer review. Identifying information (author names, affiliations, acknowledgments) must be confined to the separate title-page file, never the main manuscript file.
- Reviewer Assignment. The handling editor assigns at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise, normally affiliated with institutions different from the authors'. JICAI aims to confirm reviewer assignment within two weeks of passing initial screening.
- Review. Reviewers are given two weeks to evaluate the manuscript's originality, technical soundness, methodological rigor, and relevance to JICAI's scope, and to recommend Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
- Editorial Decision. The handling editor makes the final decision based on reviewer recommendations. Where reviewer recommendations diverge significantly, a third reviewer may be invited. The target time from submission to first decision is 4–6 weeks.
- Revision. Authors are given 2 weeks for minor revisions and 4 weeks for major revisions, and must submit a point-by-point response letter alongside the revised manuscript. Major revisions are sent back to the original reviewers for a second round where feasible.
- Production. Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, typesetting, DOI assignment, and scheduling into the next available issue.
