Guidelines for Reviewers and the Peer Review Process

Peer review is the cornerstone of ReCIBE’s scientific integrity. We deeply appreciate the time, expertise, and dedication of our reviewers in helping maintain the journal’s editorial excellence.

Double-Blind Peer Review

All manuscripts submitted to ReCIBE undergo a double-blind peer review process. To ensure fairness and objectivity:

Reviewers do not have access to the authors’ identities, institutional affiliations, or academic backgrounds.
Authors do not know the identities of the reviewers assigned to evaluate their manuscripts.
Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two external experts with recognized expertise in the subject area of the submitted work.

Evaluation Rubric and Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate each manuscript critically and impartially based on the following four core criteria:

Originality
Assessment of the novelty, scientific contribution, innovation, and advancement of the state of the art represented by the research or technological development.
Technical Quality
Evaluation of the methodological rigor, appropriateness of the experimental or conceptual design, consistency of the research process, accuracy of data analysis, and soundness of the interpretation of the results.
Relevance to the Field
Assessment of the manuscript's significance and potential impact on the scientific, academic, or technological communities in the areas of computer science, informatics, biomedical engineering, communications, and electronics.
Presentation
Evaluation of the manuscript's organization, clarity, logical structure, academic writing, appropriate use of technical terminology, quality of figures and tables, and overall coherence.

Editorial Recommendations

Based on the evaluation rubric, reviewers should recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

Accept without revisions – The manuscript meets the journal's quality standards and is suitable for immediate publication.
Accept with minor revisions – The manuscript requires only minor corrections or formatting adjustments before final production.
Major revisions required – The manuscript contains substantial methodological or conceptual issues that must be addressed and reassessed before a final publication decision can be made.
Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's minimum standards of quality, originality, or scientific rigor.

Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (Confidentiality)

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents protected by intellectual property rights. Accordingly, the following policies apply:

Prohibition of AI-assisted reviewing: Reviewers must not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems or AI-assisted tools to evaluate manuscripts or generate review reports.
Confidentiality of manuscript content: Reviewers are strictly prohibited from uploading or submitting manuscript content—including the full text or excerpts, figures, tables, images, or associated datasets—to commercial, public, or online AI platforms. Doing so constitutes a serious breach of the confidentiality required in the double-blind peer review process.
Human responsibility: Reviewers are solely responsible for the analyses, evaluations, and recommendations expressed in their review reports.

Citation Recommendations and Ethical Review Practices

In accordance with the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct:

Unjustified citation requests: Reviewers should not request or recommend that authors cite the reviewers' own publications, those of close collaborators, members of the editorial board, or articles published in ReCIBE, unless such citations are scientifically justified and essential to improve the quality or completeness of the manuscript.
Citation manipulation: Recommending unnecessary self-citations for the purpose of increasing personal citation metrics constitutes a serious breach of editorial ethics. Reviewers are encouraged to consult the relevant COPE guidance regarding reviewer requests for additional citations.

Review Timeline and Conflicts of Interest

Review timeline: Reviewers are expected to submit their evaluation within 3 to 4 weeks after accepting the review invitation, helping ensure the journal's continuous publication workflow.
Conflict of interest: If a reviewer identifies any financial, institutional, personal, or competitive conflict of interest related to the manuscript or is able to infer the authors' identities despite the double-blind review process, the reviewer must immediately decline the invitation to review the manuscript.