The Journal of Sustainable Decisions Intelligence and Optimization (JSDIO) commits to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous and transparent peer-review process. This process ensures that all published articles contribute meaningfully to the fields.

Process Overview

Upon a preliminary assessment, the qualified submission is entered a peer-review stage. Two or more independent reviewers are invited to evaluate the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, publication history, and absence of conflicts of interest. Reviewers assess the manuscript for originality, methodological rigor, clarity, relevance, and contribution to the field. They provide detailed, constructive feedback and a recommendation.

Based on reviewer comments and own evaluation, the Editor makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief, who makes the final decision. In cases where reviewer recommendations are conflicting, the editor’s own judgment may serve as the basis for resolution, rather than inviting the third reviewer.

Authors are notified and provided with reviewer feedback. Authors may be asked to revise their manuscript. Revised submissions may be sent back to reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the extent of changes.

Review Model

Type:

Double-blind peer review (both the authors and reviewers remain unaware of each other's identities).

Procedures:

• Submit manuscripts to two external reviewers—individuals who are not members of the journal's active Editorial Team.
• Conduct peer review using the provided review platforms to ensure a complete and traceable audit trail.
• For manuscripts receiving a decision of Major Revision, the revised submission should generally be re-evaluated by the original reviewers, where feasible, to confirm that critical recommendations have been adequately addressed and the manuscript has been suitably revised. If the original reviewers are unavailable, new reviewers should be appointed.
• Manuscripts receiving a Minor Revision decision may also require additional review, contingent upon the nature of the identified issues and the initial recommendations provided.

Timeframe:

The peer-review process typically takes 4–6 weeks per review round (may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.)

Review Ethics

The journal adheres to the principles and best practices established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for peer review, and the following principles have been developed in alignment with these standards.

In addition, the journal applies the following guidelines regarding the use of AI by members of the editorial team and peer reviewers:

• Under no circumstances should any manuscript or associated files submitted for consideration and review be uploaded to a generative AI tool or Large Language Model (LLM).
• Reviewers may employ a generative AI tool solely for the purpose of copy-editing their review to enhance linguistic clarity and readability. In such cases, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the review and must disclose this usage transparently to the editorial team.

The complete policy, including detailed AI guidelines for authors, reviewers, and editors, is available on the journal's Publishing Ethics page.

Principles of Peer Review

Consistency: Peer review must be conducted in strict accordance with established standards and the specific guidelines of the journal, ensuring uniformity across all members of the editorial team.

Clarity: Transparency in the review process is essential to maintaining trust in published content. Clear communication with authors and readers regarding how peer review is managed is a fundamental aspect of scholarly integrity. Explicit guidelines for authors and reviewers on the journal's peer review procedures, along with clear labeling of non-peer-reviewed content, are critical to ensuring openness and accountability.

Confidentiality: The confidential handling of manuscripts is of paramount importance. All discussions concerning a manuscript between the author, reviewer, and editor must remain strictly confidential.

Impartiality: The peer review process must be fair, objective, and free from bias. Appropriate measures must be implemented to prevent and manage both real and perceived conflicts of interest.

Rigor: Thorough attention to detail throughout the review process is essential. Measures should be taken to prevent compromised reviews, such as removing acknowledgments or references that could reveal author identities prior to sending manuscripts for review.

Effectiveness: Maintaining an effective peer review process requires monitoring reviewer performance and ensuring the provision of constructive, timely evaluations. Continuous improvement initiatives should be pursued, and support should be extended to programs that promote best practices in peer review.

Independence: Independent oversight of the peer review process by the editor and the broader editorial team is a core principle. Editorial independence, including the editor's authority to determine what the journal publishes without external interference, is fundamental to the integrity of scholarly publishing.