Peer Review Process

The Journal of Intelligent Financial Systems and Autonomous Management applies rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review to every submission. This page describes the review model, stages, expected timelines, reviewer selection, conflict-of-interest handling, decision categories, and the procedure for appeals.

1. Review model

The Journal operates a double-blind peer review model for all submissions. The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the review process. Authors are required to submit a fully anonymized manuscript, with author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and self-identifying references removed or masked, alongside a separate non-anonymized title page.

Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team or by members of the active reviewer pool are additionally handled under the Journal's Editorial Submissions Policy. These submissions receive double-blind external review by reviewers outside the editorial team, with full recusal of the author-editor from any role in the editorial process for their own submission.

Each submission receives a minimum of two independent external reviews. A third review is sought where the initial two reviews diverge materially in their recommendation.

2. Stages of review

  • Initial editorial check (typically within 7 days of submission). The handling editor checks scope-fit, completeness of submission, basic ethical compliance, effective anonymization, and language readiness. Manuscripts that fail this check are returned to the authors with a brief explanation.
  • Similarity screening. Each manuscript is screened for similarity with published literature as part of editorial screening. The Journal applies the COPE flowcharts for suspected plagiarism in a submitted manuscript. Submissions with substantial unattributed similarity are returned to the authors with an opportunity to address the issue, or rejected if the issue is severe. Full details are on the Plagiarism Policy page.
  • Reviewer invitation (typically within 14 days of editorial assignment). The handling editor invites reviewers drawn from the Journal's reviewer pool and from external experts identified through the manuscript's reference list, the editor's network, and bibliographic searches.
  • Review (typically within 3 weeks of acceptance of invitation). Reviewers complete a structured review form addressing scope-fit, originality, methodology, results, discussion, ethical compliance, and overall recommendation, together with detailed free-text comments to the author and confidential comments to the editor.
  • Editorial decision (typically within 7 days of receiving the second review). The handling editor weighs the reviews and makes one of five decisions described in Section 7.
  • Revisions and re-review (where required). Revised manuscripts are returned to the original reviewers where possible. Reviewers assess the revision and confirm or revise their recommendation.
  • Final decision and production. Once a manuscript is accepted, it moves to copyediting, typesetting, proofing, and publication.

3. Target timelines

As a newly established journal, the Journal does not yet report historical processing medians. The figures below are the targets the editorial team works to. They are aims rather than commitments for any individual submission, and they will be replaced with reported medians from the Journal's own publication history once a sufficient record exists.

  • Time to first editorial decision: target within 3 weeks of submission
  • Time from submission to final decision: target within 10 to 12 weeks

Actual timelines vary by subject area, manuscript complexity, and reviewer availability.

4. Reviewer selection

Reviewers are selected by the handling editor on the basis of subject expertise, methodological fit, and absence of conflicts of interest with the authors. The Journal applies the following principles:

  • At least two reviewers are sought for every manuscript that passes initial editorial screening.
  • Reviewers are drawn from the Journal's reviewer pool, the editorial network, citation analysis of the manuscript's reference list, and bibliographic searches in the manuscript's subject area.
  • Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but the handling editor verifies independence and selects autonomously. The Journal does not permit author-suggested reviewers without independent editorial verification.
  • Reviewer geographic and institutional diversity is preferred where the subject area permits; reviewers from the same institution as any author are not invited.
  • A reviewer who has reviewed a closely related submission by the same authors within the previous 12 months is not invited unless no comparable expertise is available.

Researchers interested in joining the reviewer pool should consult the Become a Reviewer page.

5. Conflicts of interest in review

Reviewers must decline invitations where they have a conflict of interest with the authors. The Journal's full expectations on disclosure of personal, financial, institutional, and intellectual interests are set out on the Conflicts of Interest page. Editors recuse themselves from manuscripts in which they have a competing interest. Recusal is reported in the OJS workflow log, and an alternative editor is assigned by the Editor-in-Chief.

6. Editorial submissions

Manuscripts authored by members of the editorial team or by members of the active reviewer pool are handled under the Journal's Editorial Submissions Policy, which requires:

  • Assignment of the manuscript to an independent handling editor with no co-authorship, recent collaboration, or institutional overlap with the author-editor;
  • Double-blind external review by reviewers external to the editorial team;
  • Full recusal of the author-editor from any access to the manuscript record, reviewer identities, or editorial correspondence;
  • A transparency declaration on the published article identifying the manuscript as having been handled under the Editorial Submissions Policy.

The Journal commits to keeping the proportion of articles authored by editorial team members and active reviewers below 15% in any rolling 12-month period. The full statement is on the Editorial Independence page.

7. Decision categories

The handling editor communicates one of five decisions to the corresponding author through the OJS notification system:

  • Accept: the manuscript is accepted for publication in its current form, subject to copyediting and typesetting. Acceptance without revision is uncommon; most accepted manuscripts pass through one or more rounds of revision.
  • Minor revisions: the manuscript requires limited revisions that the editor judges can be assessed without re-review by external reviewers. The author is given a defined window (typically 4 weeks) to submit the revision.
  • Major revisions: the manuscript requires substantial revisions that will be returned to one or more original reviewers. The author is given a defined window (typically 8 weeks) to submit the revision. The revised manuscript is treated as a continuation of the original submission, not a new submission.
  • Reject and resubmit: the manuscript is not currently acceptable but the editor sees a path to a future acceptable submission with substantial reworking. The author is invited to resubmit, with the resubmission treated as a new submission for tracking purposes.
  • Reject: the manuscript is not accepted. The editor's decision letter sets out the reasons.

8. Appeals

Authors who believe that their manuscript has been declined in error may appeal to the Editor-in-Chief through the Contact page. The appeal should set out the specific reasons for disagreement with the decision and should address each reviewer's substantive concerns directly. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, who may consult an independent editor or seek an additional review. The Journal aims to respond to appeals within four weeks. The appeal decision is final.

Appeals are considered only on the grounds of demonstrable process error or factual misunderstanding by reviewers. They are not a route to re-litigate scholarly judgment, and an appeal that does not identify a process or factual ground will be declined without further review.

9. Confidentiality

All material submitted to the Journal is treated as confidential during the review process. Reviewers and editors must not share or use the content of manuscripts under review for any purpose other than evaluation of the submission. Reviewers must not enter manuscripts, abstracts, figures, or any other element of a submission into external systems, including generative AI services, that retain or use the content for any purpose beyond the immediate review task.

10. Reviewer recognition

Reviewers contribute substantial uncompensated effort to the Journal, and the Journal acknowledges this contribution in the ways currently available to it, including formal acknowledgment of reviewing service on request and, where a reviewer opts in, recognition through their ORCID record.

11. Effective date and revision

This Peer Review Policy is effective from 27 June 2026. The Journal reviews this policy annually and updates it as practice evolves. Material revisions are dated.