EDITORIAL POLICY AND PEER REVIEW PROCESS

The International Journal of Software Engineering and Computer Systems aims to advance the fields of software engineering and computer systems by publishing high-quality, original research conducted ethically. It maintains the highest standards of academic integrity through a rigorous, multi-stage peer review process. This policy outlines the principles, procedures, and standards that promote transparency and consistency in assessing all submissions from initial submission to final publication. It also provides a clear system for managing all manuscripts from submission through publication and ongoing post-publication review, involving authors, peer reviewers, editors at all levels, and the publisher.

1. Manuscript Submission
All manuscripts must be submitted solely by the corresponding author through the online submission system. The corresponding author serves as the primary point of contact throughout the submission, review, revision, publication, and post-publication processes. They are responsible for ensuring all co-authors have read, approved, and unconditionally agreed to the submission and the publication conditions outlined in this policy. Submitting via the online system indicates, on behalf of all authors, their compliance with these requirements. Authors are also required to provide full contact details, disclose any potential conflicts of interest, and confirm that the manuscript is original, not published elsewhere, and not under review by another journal.

2. Editorial Screening and Peer Review
2.1 Plagiarism and GenAI Content Preliminary Screening
Each submitted manuscript enters the online system and is promptly assigned to a Managing Editor. The Managing Editor conducts an initial plagiarism check to ensure originality, proper attribution, and to identify any Generative AI (GenAI) content. This step verifies that the manuscript adheres to the journal’s Author Guidelines, includes all required parts, follows proper citation standards, and is complete with sections, figures, tables, and supplementary materials. A preliminary similarity check using licensed software (Turnitin) shows no major issues requiring immediate rejection.
At this stage, the similarity check identifies manuscripts that require editorial review rather than automatically accepting them. Manuscripts failing to meet basic technical standards are returned to the corresponding author within five working days with a written explanation of the issues to address before resubmission. Technically complete manuscripts are sent to the Editor-in-Chief within 5 working days after initial screening. Manuscripts not meeting preliminary requirements are returned to authors with guidance on necessary revisions before they can undergo editorial review. This initial screening is essential to ensure that only well-prepared, properly formatted manuscripts move forward to the detailed review stage.

2.2 Editor-in-Chief Initial Screening
Manuscripts that pass preliminary screening undergo a first review by the Editor-in-Chief. This process assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's aims and scope, ensures that the research question, approach, and contribution meet basic scholarly standards for peer review, and checks for any immediate ethical issues that need to be addressed before moving forward. It is important to note that this screening is not a peer review and does not involve a detailed technical evaluation. Instead, it serves as a gatekeeping step to ensure that reviewers' efforts are focused on manuscripts with genuine potential for publication.
Manuscripts rejected during the initial screening process are accompanied by a written explanation sent to the corresponding author, detailing the reasons for rejection, whether due to being out of scope, below the threshold, or for ethical reasons. Authors who believe their rejection was based on a misinterpretation of the manuscript's scope or contribution can request reconsideration in writing within 15 working days, citing the reasons given in the rejection letter. The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision on reconsiderations. Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate Section Editor within 7 working days.

2.3 Section Editors Academic Screening
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief are assigned to a Section Editors selected for their expertise, methodological fit, and editorial skills. The Section Editor takes on primary editorial duties from this stage until the final decision is made and communicated to the corresponding author. They also act as the main scholarly coordinator among the editorial office, peer reviewers, and, when necessary, the authors.
The Section Editor performs an in-depth academic review before forwarding the manuscript for external peer review. This step is more detailed and independent than the Editor-in-Chief's initial assessment. It serves as a scholarly pre-review to confirm whether the research design meets the objectives, whether the methods are appropriate and correctly applied, whether the literature review is current and accurately positions the work within the field, and whether the preliminary results and arguments demonstrate sufficient scholarly potential. The screening also identifies any methodological, presentation, and ethical issues that require correction before external review, allowing the Section Editor to provide constructive guidance rather than submit an unprepared manuscript. If the manuscript passes this review and has no issues requiring rework, it proceeds directly to the reviewer selection stage. All decisions and their justifications are documented in the editorial management system.

2.4 Peer Review Model and Disclosure
IJSECS employs a single-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. Under this system, reviewers' identities remain hidden from authors at all stages, before, during, and after publication, while reviewers see the authors' names and affiliations. This approach aims to maintain reviewer independence and encourage honest, critical assessments without fear of professional or personal repercussions. The journal's website explicitly states this single-blind review policy. IJSECS reviews its peer-review process annually, taking into account developments in global best practices, feedback from authors and reviewers, and evidence on the effectiveness of alternative peer-review methods. Any proposed changes, such as implementing double-blind, open, or post-publication peer review, will be announced on the journal website and in this policy at least 60 days before implementation. Additionally, these changes will be communicated directly to registered reviewers and to all authors with manuscripts under review at that time.

2.5 Reviewer Identification and Qualification Criteria
Choosing qualified, independent, and available peer reviewers is a key responsibility of the Associate Editor-in-Chief, as the quality and fairness of the peer review rely entirely on the reviewers' expertise and independence. Reviewers are found through various sources, including the journal's reviewer database, which is built and continually updated; the reference lists within the submitted manuscript and recent publications in the same field; targeted searches in academic databases and institutional directories, especially when the research area is highly specialised, or the methodology crosses disciplinary lines.
Each reviewer considered for a manuscript must meet all of the following criteria. They must have current, demonstrable expertise relevant to the manuscript's subject, methodology, and analytical approach, as well as general software engineering and computer systems knowledge. They should have been active in related research within the last five years, as demonstrated by publications, conference presentations, or funded projects. They should not have close personal, familial, or supervisory ties with any author. Financial relationships with organisations interested in the research outcome should be absent. Finally, they must not be involved in competing research on the same specific topic, as this could suggest bias.
IJSECS actively promotes geographical and institutional diversity in its reviewer selection, aligning with the journal's international scope and diversity policy. The Section Editor strives to involve at least two independent reviewers for each manuscript. Reviewers who have previously reviewed for IJSECS or are on the editorial board are eligible for assignments, as long as they meet all qualifications and do not have personal relationships with the authors that could bias their judgment.

2.6 Suggested and Excluded Reviewers
Authors may suggest up to 3 reviewers during submission, providing each reviewer's full name, affiliation, email address, and a brief justification of their expertise. These suggestions are advisory; the Section Editor may not invite all if they do not meet standards. Reviewers with unverifiable email addresses will not be invited. All suggestions are checked against public information, and patterns indicating influence or manipulation are monitored, with potential misconduct handled in accordance with policy. Authors may specify up to two individuals to exclude from review, with a written reason. These requests are confidential and assessed by the Section Editor on their merits. Valid reasons include ongoing disputes, direct competition, or personal relationships that may bias the review. Requests seeking critical evaluation are not accepted. The Section Editor retains the final decision on reviewer selection.

2.7 Reviewer Invitation, Onboarding, and Assignment
Reviewer invitations are sent via the editorial management system within 7 working days after the Associate Editor-in-Chief's initial screening. Each invitation includes the manuscript's title, abstract, keywords, a summary of key topics and methods, the journal's review timeline, a link to Reviewer Guidelines, and advice on checking for conflicts of interest. Reviewers are asked to respond within five working days. If no reply is received, a reminder is sent after 5 days; if still no response after 3 days, the invitation expires and a new reviewer is assigned.
When accepting a review, reviewers receive the full manuscript, submission materials, and the Review Form in a single-blind setup. Reviewer Guidelines detail evaluation criteria, review structure, tone, length, and differences between comments for authors and editors. They require evidence-based assessments, procedures for reporting misconduct, and confidentiality policies. New reviewers receive COPE-aligned ethics training; existing reviewers recertify annually to remain eligible.
The journal requires at least two independent reviews per manuscript before making a decision. In niche fields with few reviewers, the Section Editor may seek a third review for thoroughness or proceed with two reviews if a third isn't available quickly. Any decision based on fewer than two reviews must be justified and approved by the Editor-in-Chief.

2.8 Review Period and Reviewer Obligations
The peer review period usually lasts four to six weeks, from the time the reviewer accepts the assignment until the manuscript is available through the reviewer portal. This reflects the journal's commitment to timely decisions while giving reviewers enough time for thorough assessments. Reviewers who cannot complete their review within this period should notify the Section Editor early and provide an expected completion date. Extensions up to four weeks can be granted at the Editor's discretion without explanation. Longer extensions require specific reasons and are granted only if the manuscript's complexity or the reviewer's circumstances genuinely warrant it, and a replacement reviewer cannot be found sooner.
Reviewers must follow COPE's Ethical Guidelines and the journal’s Reviewer Guidelines, and provide a detailed assessment that addresses the Section 4 criteria and cites specific manuscript sections. They should differentiate major concerns from minor suggestions, use professional language, complete the Review Form with public and confidential comments, and offer a clear overall recommendation in Section 6. The manuscript, submission materials, and review process are strictly confidential. Reviewers cannot share manuscript details or their review assignment with anyone, nor discuss the manuscript during the review period. They must not use unpublished information before publication or keep copies after review. If sharing with a colleague or student is necessary for technical advice, the reviewer must notify the Section Editor and specify who will be involved. Reviewers must also follow the GenAI utilisation criteria in the Generative AI Declaration policy.

2.9 Conflict of Interest Identification and Management
All reviewers are required to identify and disclose any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment. This responsibility begins when they receive the review invitation and is a necessary condition for acceptance. A conflict of interest is present if there is a professional, financial, personal, or competitive connection between the reviewer and any author, affiliated institution, research sponsor, or the manuscript's subject matter that could perceptibly threaten the impartiality of the review. While a conflict does not automatically disqualify a reviewer, if the Section Editor considers it minor and manageable, it must still be disclosed, recorded in the editorial management system, and reviewed by the Section Editor prior to proceeding. If a reviewer discovers a conflict of interest after accepting a task, they must disclose it immediately to the Section Editor and withhold their review until a decision is made. Submitting a review with a known undisclosed conflict is misconduct and will be reported. Editorial decisions based on such reviews may be reconsidered.

2.10 Handling of Late, Incomplete, and Withdrawn Reviews
If a reviewer hasn't submitted their review within four to six weeks and no extension is agreed, the Section Editor sends a formal reminder within three working days of the deadline. If no review is received within 10 working days of this reminder, the reviewer will be contacted. If there's no response within the next 5 days, the review will be withdrawn, and a new reviewer will be invited. The Section Editor monitors all reviews via the management system, sending informal progress reminders midway for pending reviews.
When a review does not meet the IJSECS standards for specificity, evidence, or completeness, such as being mainly unsupported observations, lacking evaluation criteria, or offering a recommendation without justification, the Section Editor returns it with an explanation and asks for a revised assessment. If the reviewer does not provide an adequate review, the assignment is withdrawn, and a new reviewer is found. If a reviewer withdraws after accepting, the Section Editor records the withdrawal and its reason, finds a replacement, and decides whether to keep the partial review or discard it entirely.

2.11 Management of Divergent and Conflicting Reviewer Opinions
It is common and widely recognised that two expert reviewers can arrive at different conclusions about the same manuscript, especially regarding the novelty of the work, methodological soundness, data interpretation, or overall publication readiness. IJSECS's editorial process addresses these differing reviewer opinions in a fair and transparent way, prioritising the interests of both the journal and the authors. Instead of simply favouring the more negative review or seeking numerical consensus, the process thoughtfully considers all perspectives.
When two reviewers' reports diverge significantly in their recommendations, the Section Editor first checks whether the divergence is due to a genuine difference in expert opinion or to a misunderstanding, a lack of technical engagement, or an inadequate review. If it's a true scholarly difference, the Section Editor may seek a third reviewer for an independent opinion; or synthesise the existing reports, explaining how assessments were weighed, which is more persuasive, and the recommended outcome; or invite authors to revise the manuscript to address the less favourable review, then reassess. The chosen approach is documented in the editorial system.
The Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief are not bound by reviewer recommendations and may exercise independent scholarly judgment based on the evidence from reviewer reports, the manuscript, and their own expertise. These decisions, including reasons, are documented in the editorial management system and available for review by the Research Publications Oversight Committee during annual oversight.

2.12 Re-Review Following Revision
When a manuscript is returned for major revisions, it undergoes a full re-review upon resubmission. The Section Editor first reviews the revised manuscript and response letter to check if revisions address reviewers’ concerns and improve the manuscript. If revisions are responsive and complete, they are sent to original or replacement reviewers for a focused re-review to assess if concerns were properly addressed. Reviewers re-review within three to four weeks, as it is less demanding than an initial review. Reports should state whether concerns from the original review are resolved, whether new concerns arise, and whether the manuscript is accepted, revised, or rejected. Reviewers should not introduce new concerns unless they arise from revisions, new material, or ethical issues, as per Section 3.8. When a manuscript with minor revisions is returned, the Section Editor re-reviews it without involving external reviewers, unless new significant issues are found. They verify that revisions have been addressed, the response letter is accurate, and the manuscript meets IJSECS standards before recommending it to the Editor-in-Chief.

3.13 Reporting of Suspected Misconduct During Peer Review
Peer reviewers play a trusted role in publishing, with a duty to report concerns about the integrity of the work. If, while reviewing, they suspect misconduct, such as plagiarism, data manipulation, undisclosed duplicates, conflicts of interest, ethics violations, AI misuse, or other issues outlined in the journal's Misconduct Handling Policy, they must report this in writing to the Associate or Editor-in-Chief, separately from the review, with detailed documentation. The reporting threshold is based on credible suspicion, not proof. Reviewers should only flag concerns to the editorial office; they do not investigate misconduct. Reported concerns are protected and would not harm future review invitations if made in good faith. Reporting misconduct does not suspend the review work unless the Section Editor decides otherwise.

2.14 Reviewer Recognition and Acknowledgement
IJSECS recognises that peer review relies on voluntary contributions from expert researchers who donate time and expertise without pay. The journal commits to transparently acknowledging this contribution, in line with international standards. IJSECS provides verified reviewer certificates upon request via the editorial management system, confirming the reviewer’s peer-review contributions over a specified period. These certificates are suitable for academic promotions, grant applications, and institutional records. IJSECS aims to integrate with ORCID's peer-review system so that, with consent, confirmed reviews can be automatically added to the reviewer's ORCID profile, creating a portable, credentialed record of peer-review activities across journals that use ORCID.

3. Peer Review Evaluation Criteria
Every manuscript undergoing external peer review is evaluated by each reviewer against six criteria, embedded in the structured IJSECS Review Form, which all reviewers must complete. These criteria are mandatory, not optional, and serve as the framework for every assessment. They are applied within the context of the research area, methodology, and contribution type, with the relative importance of each criterion varying across different research types. All criteria must be explicitly addressed, with assessments citing specific evidence from the manuscript, such as passages, figures, or data. General impressions without specific evidence are inadequate and will be returned for revision.

3.1 Originality and Novelty of Contribution
Every manuscript submitted to IJSECS must present an original and substantive intellectual advance over the existing published literature, clearly identified and supported by results, analysis, or theoretical development. Originality may involve new frameworks, mathematical or conceptual models, experimental techniques, or the application of analytical methods to new engineering problems, producing new knowledge or solutions. It may also include deriving new solutions, scaling relationships, or synthesising knowledge from multiple fields to generate new models or insights not found in existing publications.
Reviewers assessing originality must first identify where the claimed novel/new contribution is located, then assess whether it is properly contextualised within the current state of the art, verifying that authors have accurately characterised what is known, and ensuring that the claimed novelty is supported by results, derivations, or analyses, not just assertions. IJSECS welcomes original, clearly articulated incremental contributions; it does not require radical departures but demands that the marginal advance be real, specific, and substantiated. Contradicted claims, overstated significance, or ignored relevant prior work are grounds for revision or rejection.

3.2 Significance and Validity of Findings
A manuscript's significance depends on how important its research question is to software engineering and computer systems, its potential to impact the field, and its influence on future research, practice, and understanding. Important work addresses questions that matter to researchers, remain unresolved, or impact software design, system reliability, security, or performance. Reviewers assess whether the question is timely and justify why it is relevant or not. Validity is distinct from significance. A crucial question might be answered invalidly, while a less critical one can be addressed with valid methods. Validity assesses whether conclusions are fully backed by data and analyses, avoiding overreach beyond the evidence. It also evaluates whether the methods align with the research, data, and assumptions; whether uncertainty is adequately reported; whether limitations are openly acknowledged; and whether inferences genuinely reflect the evidence without exaggerating its importance or scope. Reviewers should identify unsupported conclusions and specify what evidence or analysis is needed to substantiate them.

3.3 Methodological Rigour
Each manuscript must clearly and thoroughly detail its methodology so that independent researchers with relevant expertise can replicate the study. This standard of reproducibility, required by COPE, essential for Scopus, and demanded by research funders, is crucial for confirming and advancing scientific knowledge. Results that cannot be reproduced lack reliability, no matter their significance. Reviewers evaluate methodological rigour and reproducibility against specific criteria.
For experimental research, reviewers check if all conditions, materials, instruments, environment, sample preparation, and methods are detailed; if control and baseline measurements are included; if the sample size or replications are justified based on measurement uncertainty and statistical confidence; and if measurement uncertainty, calibration, and error analysis are thoroughly described and correctly applied to the results.
For computational research, reviewers verify that equations, boundary and initial conditions, schemes, parameters, and convergence criteria are detailed. They check if the model has been validated against solutions, benchmarks, or published data. They also assess whether the sensitivity of the results to key parameters and resolution choices has been evaluated and reported. Reviewers ensure computational resources and software versions are specified for replication. For analytical research, they evaluate whether assumptions are stated, derivations are accurate, and the scope and limitations are clear.

3.4 Presentation Quality, Structure, and Language
Every manuscript submitted to IJSECS must be written in clear, precise, grammatically correct English so the scientific content is understandable to the international readership without the need for interpretation. It must follow the IJSECS Author Template and Guidelines, include all required sections, and have figures, tables, equations, algorithms, and supplementary materials properly numbered, captioned, and cross-referenced. Technical terminology must be used consistently and accurately.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript's logical flow, checking if the progression from introduction to conclusions is coherent and persuasive; if the introduction motivates the research and places it within the field; whether the results are presented clearly without premature interpretation; if the discussion appropriately distinguishes data from inference; and if figures, tables, units, notation, and the abstract's clarity meet quality standards.
Authors whose first language isn't English should consider professional editing before or after peer review. IJSECS offers guidance on affordable editing services in the author guidelines and does not reject manuscripts solely for language issues if the scientific content is sound and the text is understandable. Reviewers should differentiate between language that hinders scientific assessment, which needs revision before review, and minor errors that don't impede comprehension and can be fixed after acceptance.

3.5 Relevance to Scope and Field Significance
Every manuscript in IJSECS must address a topic within the journal's aims and scope, as published on the website, and must be substantively relevant to the software engineering and computer systems research community. Relevance influences readership engagement and the journal's credibility. Reviewers assess if the topic fits, if the manuscript's technical level suits IJSECS, and if it tackles open, important questions in the field.
Reviewers assess how effectively the manuscript engages with recent literature, verifying if it cites recent publications, accurately summarises existing knowledge, and aligns its contributions with current priorities and challenges. Manuscripts that address important issues but rely on outdated literature and neglect recent developments from the past three to five years will be returned to the authors for an update. An outdated literature review diminishes the manuscript's originality and reduces the review's quality.

3.6 Overall Scholarly Merit and Publication Recommendation
The overall merit assessment synthesises the five criteria to form the reviewer's publication recommendation. It is not a separate criterion but an overall conclusion that weighs the manuscript's strengths against its limitations to determine whether it meets the journal standards. Reviewers should consider the reproducibility of the methods, the potential for citations and impact, practical relevance, alignment with research priorities, and whether publication would benefit IJSECS's audience.
Reviewers must clearly state their overall recommendation using one of four IJSECS categories: Accept as Submitted, Accept with Minor Revisions, Accept with Major Revisions Required, Revise and Resubmit or Reject. Each must be supported by specific references to the assessment criteria. Recommendations not based on concrete observations will be returned for clarification. Reviewers can also include confidential comments for editors only, such as thoughts on the manuscript's novelty, concerns requiring editorial attention, or contextual information to aid decision-making.

4. Editorial Decision-Making
4.1 Section Editor Recommendation
Once all reviewer reports are received, the Section Editor reviews and assesses the feedback in full, drawing on their expertise in the relevant subject and methodological rigour. This review integrates the reviewers' evaluations, highlights areas of agreement and disagreement, and forms a preliminary recommendation for the Editor-in-Chief. If there are major differences in reviewer opinions on the manuscript's strengths, the Section Editor may consult an additional reviewer or include a detailed written explanation of how the conflicting assessments were considered and balanced. The preliminary recommendation, along with all reviewer reports, is sent to the Editor-in-Chief within five working days of receiving the final reviewer report.

4.2 Editor-in-Chief Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief holds ultimate, independent authority for all publication decisions and exercises that authority free from commercial or institutional pressure, consistent with COPE Core Practices 7 and 8. After reviewing the Associate Editor-in-Chief's recommendation, the complete reviewer reports, and the manuscript itself, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final editorial determination- acceptance, revision, or rejection- with reasons recorded in the editorial management system. The decision is made solely on the basis of the scholarly quality, originality, significance, and ethical compliance of the submitted work, without reference to the financial implications of the decision for UMPSA Press or the journal, the institutional affiliation or seniority of the authors, or any factor other than merit and compliance. The Editor-in-Chief may exercise independent judgment where the reviewer reports are incomplete, internally inconsistent, or demonstrably biased, or where additional considerations of publication ethics require a departure from the reviewers' recommendations.

4.3 Communication of Decisions to Authors
Editorial decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in writing via the editorial management system within five working days of the final decision being recorded. Decision communications include: the complete reviewer reports, subject to the quality assurance process described in Section 5.6; the Associate Editor-in-Chief's summary guidance where applicable; and the Editor-in-Chief's decision letter, which specifies the decision category, the basis for the decision, and for manuscripts requiring revision, a clear and specific description of the required changes, the resubmission timeline, and the criteria against which the revised manuscript will be assessed. The editorial management system maintains a complete, timestamped, and auditable record of all communications associated with each manuscript.

4.4 Conflict of Interest Management in Decision-Making
No editor or reviewer may participate in any editorial decision concerning a manuscript in which they have an actual or potential conflict of interest. Editors who have authored or co-authored the submitted manuscript, or who have a personal, financial, or close professional relationship with any named author that could reasonably be perceived to compromise objectivity, must recuse themselves immediately upon identifying the conflict, disclose its nature to the Editor-in-Chief, and ensure that the manuscript is reassigned to an editor without the same conflict. Where the conflict involves the Editor-in-Chief personally, including manuscripts authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief, the manuscript is assigned to an Alternative Editor designated by the UMPSA Research Publications Oversight Committee, with the process and outcome reported to UMPSA Press. All editors complete and sign an annual conflict-of-interest disclosure as a formal condition of their editorial appointment. All competing interests declared at submission are published in the article.

4.5 Appeals Against Editorial Decisions
Authors may appeal an editorial decision, including rejection at initial screening, rejection following peer review, or an adverse decision following major revision, by submitting a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 20 working days of receiving the decision communication. An appeal will be accepted for review only where the author demonstrates at least one of the following: that the reviewer reports contain specific and material factual errors that substantively affected the editorial assessment; that the rejection was based on a demonstrable misunderstanding of the manuscript's scope, methodology, or intellectual contribution that can be clearly resolved by reference to the manuscript text; or that an identifiable procedural irregularity occurred in the review process that materially prejudiced the outcome. Expressions of general dissatisfaction with the outcome, requests for a second opinion without specific substantive grounds, and restatements of arguments already considered during the review process do not constitute valid grounds for appeal.
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal and provides a written response within ten working days of receipt. Where the appeal is upheld, the manuscript is reassigned for fresh peer review by reviewers different from those who assessed the original submission. Where the appeal relates to a rejection by the Editor-in-Chief at initial screening, the reconsideration is conducted by the Editor-in-Chief. The decision on appeal is final.

4.6 Reviewer Feedback Quality Assurance
Before any reviewer feedback is transmitted to authors, the Section Editor reviews all reviewer comments to verify that they meet the standard for constructive, specific, and professionally appropriate scholarly communication required by IJSECS and by COPE's Code of Conduct for Reviewers. Comments containing personally disparaging or insulting remarks directed at the authors; reviewer self-promotional content constituting coercive citation; explicit statements of the reviewer's publication recommendation, which are confidential to the editorial process; or content that is unprofessional or otherwise inappropriate for communication to authors, are edited or withheld by the Section Editor before the review is transmitted. Where editorial modification has been made, the decision communication to the authors includes a note confirming that the complete reviewer assessment was received and fully considered by the editorial team, and that the transmitted comments represent those elements communicable to the authors under IJSECS's professional editorial standards.

5. Decision Categories and The Revision Process
Following peer review and the Associate Editor-in-Chief's recommendation, the Editor-in-Chief assigns one of five decision categories to each manuscript. Each category reflects the cumulative assessment of scholarly merit, methodological soundness, presentation quality, and ethical compliance. The criteria governing each category, the expectations placed on authors where revision is required, and the subsequent review process are set out below.

5.1 Accept as Submitted
An accept-as-submitted decision indicates that the manuscript meets all applicable scholarly, methodological, presentational, and ethical standards in its current form and may proceed directly to production without modification. This outcome is reserved for manuscripts of exceptional quality that demonstrate exemplary and fully reproducible research design, comprehensively documented methodology, conclusions fully supported by the evidence and appropriately qualified in their scope, writing of high professional clarity, and a clearly articulated and significant contribution to the software engineering and computer systems field. Manuscripts accepted without revision are transferred to the production team within five working days.

5.2 Accept with Minor Revisions
An accept-with-minor-revisions decision indicates that the manuscript is of publishable quality and makes a sound scholarly contribution, but requires limited and specific improvements that do not involve new data collection, additional experimental work, or fundamental restructuring of the argument or analysis. Minor revisions typically encompass: clarifications of specific statements, claims, or conclusions identified as ambiguous or insufficiently supported; targeted additions to the literature review to address overlooked recent work; modest improvements to figures or tables for clarity or correctness; minor corrections to the presentation of quantitative results; formatting corrections to comply with IJSECS template requirements; and language improvements in identified passages. Authors are given three weeks to complete and resubmit minor revisions, accompanied by a point-by-point response letter addressing each requested change. Revised manuscripts are assessed by the Associate Editor-in-Chief, who verifies compliance with the requested revisions without returning the manuscript to the external reviewers.

5.3 Major Revisions Required
A major-revisions-required decision indicates that the manuscript addresses a significant research question and demonstrates scholarly promise, but requires substantial improvements to meet the IJSECS publication standard. Major revisions are required where reviewers have identified significant technical or methodological concerns addressable through additional analysis, data presentation, or supplementary experimental work; where the results section lacks the level of detail, validation, or uncertainty quantification required to substantiate the claims; where the discussion overstates the implications of the findings or fails to engage with important competing interpretations; or where the manuscript's structure or writing quality materially impedes reader comprehension. Authors are given eight weeks to complete major revisions, with the possibility of a single four-week extension upon a reasoned written request. Revised manuscripts must be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response letter demonstrating how each reviewer’s and editorial concern has been addressed. Revised manuscripts undergo full external review, typically by the original reviewers where they are available and willing.

5.4 Revise and Resubmit
A revise-and-resubmit decision indicates that the research question is of genuine scholarly value and the overall approach has sufficient merit to warrant further investment, but that the manuscript in its current form requires extensive revision of a nature that may fundamentally reshape its scope, structure, analytical depth, or the framing of its contribution. This category is distinguished from major revisions by the degree to which the required changes may alter the manuscript's fundamental intellectual nature, and by the fact that resubmitted manuscripts enter the review queue as new submissions and undergo a full independent peer review process. Authors may be required to reformulate the research objectives; to conduct additional experimental, computational, or theoretical work to address critical methodological or evidential gaps; to apply substantially more rigorous analytical methods; to restructure the manuscript to improve its argumentative coherence; or to undertake the validation studies or comparative analyses necessary to substantiate the claimed contributions. There is no guarantee of acceptance following resubmission; the resubmitted manuscript is assessed on its merits against all other manuscripts in the review queue.

5.5 Reject
A rejection decision is final, and the manuscript may not be resubmitted to IJSECS. Rejection applies where: the manuscript has fundamental flaws that cannot be remedied through revision within the scope of the submitted work; serious methodological errors invalidate the principal reported findings; the work lacks sufficient originality to constitute a publishable scholarly contribution; the manuscript falls outside the aims and scope of IJSECS and cannot be appropriately reframed; material ethical violations are identified; or credible evidence of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or other publication misconduct is found. Rejection communications provide the corresponding author with specific, written explanations of the grounds for the decision. Where the work may be appropriate for publication in a different venue, the rejection letter may include a brief indication to that effect. Where rejection is based on suspected misconduct, the matter is handled in accordance with the IJSECS Misconduct, Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions Policy.

6. Production, Publication, and Author Rights
6.1 Copyediting and Pre-Publication Checks
Accepted manuscripts proceed to professional copyediting, where qualified copyeditors correct grammatical and typographical errors, improve sentence-level clarity and consistency of expression, verify that all in-text citations correspond to complete and correctly formatted reference list entries, and apply the IJSECS house style uniformly throughout the manuscript. Copyeditors simultaneously prepare article-level metadata for indexing and discoverability, including the structured abstract, author affiliations and ORCID identifiers, disciplinary keywords conforming to the controlled vocabulary used by Scopus and Web of Science, and funding acknowledgements in the standardised format required by major indexing databases. Following copyediting, the manuscript undergoes a final similarity check against the published literature, online repositories, and journal archives using licensed detection software. Where this final check identifies concerns not detected at the preliminary screening stage, the manuscript is referred to the Editor-in-Chief for assessment before production continues. Copyeditors verify that all mandatory article elements, data availability statement, ethics statement, competing interests declaration, and author contribution statement are present, accurately reproduced, and correctly formatted for publication.

6.2 Galley Proof Review
Following copyediting and typesetting by the UMPSA Press production team, the corresponding author receives a camera-ready galley proof for final review. Authors have five working days from the date of transmission to verify the accuracy of all technical content, including equations, figures, tables, numerical data, and reference details, to confirm that all editorial corrections have been applied correctly, and to identify any errors introduced during the typesetting process. Authors are required to focus their review on the correction of factual inaccuracies and production errors; substantive changes to the scientific content of an accepted article are generally not permissible at the galley proof stage and may require a return to the editorial review process at the Editor-in-Chief's discretion. Corrections identified at the galley proof stage must be submitted to the production editor as a clear, itemised list within the five-working-day window. Authors who do not return galley proof comments within this period are deemed to have approved the proof as presented.

6.3 Online Publication, DOI Registration, and Indexing
Upon the corresponding author's approval of the galley proof, the article is published online as the definitive Version of Record on the IJSECS journal portal. Each article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier registered with CrossRef, providing a permanent, stable, and globally resolvable citation link. CrossMark is implemented across all IJSECS articles; any reader accessing a published article through the journal website, through the Scopus abstract and citation database, through the Web of Science, or through any other access platform immediately receives an authoritative, publisher-verified indication of the article's current publication status, including any corrections, expressions of concern, or retraction notices issued since first publication. Complete and accurate article-level metadata is submitted to Scopus and Web of Science content pipelines within five working days of online publication. IJSECS is a fully open-access journal; all articles are freely and permanently accessible worldwide without subscription barriers or embargoes.

6.4 Author Rights and Copyright
Authors retain copyright in their published work and grant UMPSA Press a non-exclusive, worldwide licence to publish, reproduce, distribute, and archive the article in all forms and through all channels consistent with the open-access objectives of the journal. The specific terms of the Licence to Publish are provided to the corresponding author at acceptance and must be executed before production commences. Authors are entitled to self-archive the accepted manuscript (the post-peer-review, pre-copyediting version) in institutional repositories, personal or institutional websites, and recognised disciplinary repositories immediately upon acceptance, provided the repository record accurately identifies the work as an accepted manuscript and includes a link to the published Version of Record upon its availability. Authors may also share and distribute the published Version of Record under the terms of the applicable Creative Commons licence without restriction. Authors should accurately represent their rights in the work when depositing in repositories or negotiating with third parties.

7. Post-Publication Oversight
IJSECS's responsibility for the integrity of its published scholarly record extends indefinitely beyond the date of first publication. An article does not acquire immunity from post-publication action on account of its age, citation impact, or the passage of time. All post-publication notices, corrections, expressions of concern, and retraction notices are issued in full compliance with COPE Retraction Guidelines and are assigned individual CrossRef-registered DOIs, published openly and without access restriction, and submitted within five working days of publication to all abstracting, indexing, and citation databases in which the original article appears. This section provides an operationally concise summary of the post-publication framework; the full procedures and criteria are set out in the IJSECS Misconduct, Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions Policy, which is published in full on the journal website and constitutes the complete post-publication ethics and malpractice statement for IJSECS.
A correction notice, including an Erratum, Corrigendum, or Addendum as appropriate, is issued where an error in a published article does not invalidate the principal findings or conclusions but would mislead readers if left unaddressed. Corrections are linked bidirectionally and permanently to the original article, and CrossMark metadata is updated within five working days of publication. A separate expression of concern is issued where credible and material doubts about the integrity, reliability, or ethical basis of a published article have been raised but cannot yet be definitively resolved, either because the investigation is ongoing, because the authors or their institution are unable or unwilling to cooperate, or because the available evidence is insufficient to reach a final determination. An expression of concern does not constitute a finding of misconduct; it is replaced by a correction, retraction, or notice of clearance upon resolution.
A retraction notice is issued where the principal findings of a published article are unreliable as a result of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, or honest error of sufficient magnitude; where the research was conducted in violation of ethical requirements and no lesser remedy adequately protects participants or the integrity of the record; where the article is the product of peer review manipulation or systematic publication fraud; or where the article has been published elsewhere without appropriate disclosure. In accordance with COPE Retraction Guidelines, retracted articles remain accessible in the published record and are permanently watermarked RETRACTED on every page; they are not deleted. Retraction notices are indexed in Scopus and Web of Science as separate, searchable records linked to the original article's database record.

8. Transparency, Governance, and Best Practices Principles
8.1 Transparency and Best Practice
IJSECS commits to adhering to all Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing, which set minimum standards for honest, transparent, and ethical practices in credible journals. These principles cover website accuracy, peer review clarity, governance transparency, author fees, copyright, editorial board qualifications, conflicts of interest, research ethics, and advertising practices. IJSECS publishes an annual updated statement of compliance on its website.
This statement, together with the companion Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and Misconduct Handling Policy, constitutes the publicly available publication-ethics documentation required. As these bodies operate continuous re-evaluation, the Annual Transparency Report (Section 8.6) provides the documented evidence maintained for that purpose.

8.2 Editorial Board Composition and Governance
The IJSECS editorial board comprises active scholars with recognised expertise and publication records in the journal's fields. Editorial board members are chosen based on their qualifications, subject-matter knowledge, and the absence of conflicts of interest that affect their objectivity. The board reflects geographic and institutional diversity. All members' full names and affiliations are published on the website and verified annually. The Editor-in-Chief is appointed by UMPSA Press through a transparent process, serves a renewable term, and undergoes annual reviews by the Research Publications Oversight Committee.

8.3 Data, Code, and Research Material Availability
IJSECS promotes open science by encouraging authors to deposit research data, code, and materials in recognised open-access repositories whenever legally, ethically, and practically possible. All articles must include a data availability statement that specifies the repository and persistent identifier, or explains why data sharing is not feasible. If sharing is not possible due to confidentiality, sensitivity, or legal issues, this must be clearly stated.

8.4 Conflict of Interest Statement
IJSECS requires full disclosure of any financial, personal, professional, institutional, or ideological interest that could compromise, or be seen to compromise, the objectivity of the research, its review, or the editorial decision. This statement complements the operational provisions in Sections 2.9 and 4.4. Authors declare all competing interests and funding sources in dedicated Competing Interests and Funding statements, published in the final article; where none exist, they state so explicitly. Editors and reviewers recuse themselves from any manuscript in which they have a competing interest and disclose it to the Editor-in-Chief; editors do not handle their own authored work, and all editors file an annual declaration. UMPSA Press plays no part in editorial decisions and does not permit advertising, reprint, sponsorship, or article-processing-charge revenue to influence them. Undisclosed or mismanaged conflicts are investigated under the Misconduct Handling Policy. This statement is published on the journal website in line with the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing.

9. Commitment to Continuous Quality Improvement
The IJSECS continually evaluates and refines its editorial and peer-review processes, aligning them with international best practices. The editorial team reviews this policy annually, taking into account updates and feedback from editors, reviewers, and authors. Proposed changes are approved by the Editor-in-Chief and the UMPSA Research Publications Oversight Committee, then communicated to the editorial board, reviewers, and authors within 30 days. The updated policy is published on the journal website within the same timeframe. IJSECS engages in ethical practices to keep its policies aligned with evolving publication ethics and to address challenges such as AI, open science, and new peer-review models. The journal seeks input from authors, reviewers, and readers on the quality and fairness of its processes, incorporating suggestions during its annual review by the Research Publications Oversight Committee.

Updated: 1 January 2026