Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

The Pakistan Journal of Artificial Intelligence (PJAI) is dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous double-blind peer review process. This ensures the integrity, scientific quality, and relevance of research published in the journal, particularly in the evolving domain of artificial intelligence. All manuscripts are evaluated fairly and objectively by independent experts in the field.

2. Initial Manuscript Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts are first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editorial board members. The initial screening ensures that submissions align with the journal’s aims and scope, comply with ethical and formatting guidelines, and meet baseline scientific quality. Manuscripts failing to meet these criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.

3. Double-Blind Peer Review Process

PJAI employs a double-blind peer review system to uphold objectivity and anonymity for both authors and reviewers.

• Anonymization: All identifying details are removed from manuscripts before being sent for review. Reviewers’ identities are kept confidential throughout the process.

• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are chosen based on subject expertise, research credentials, and experience in peer reviewing AI-related manuscripts. Each submission is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.

• Evaluation Criteria: Manuscripts are reviewed based on:

  • Originality and significance of AI application

  • Scientific and technical rigor

  • Clarity of presentation

  • Validity and reproducibility of methods and results

  • Adherence to ethical standards

• Conflict of Interest: Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and decline to review if bias is possible. Alternate reviewers are assigned as needed.

4. Decision-Making Process

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a delegated section editor based on the reviewers’ reports.

Editorial outcomes may include:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication.

• Minor Revisions: Authors must address limited comments prior to final acceptance.

• Major Revisions: Substantial revisions are required before re-evaluation.

• Reject: The submission is unsuitable for publication.

Additional expert opinions may be sought for borderline or conflicting recommendations.

5. Revision and Resubmission

Authors are expected to revise their manuscripts thoroughly in response to reviewer feedback. A detailed response letter should accompany the revised version, outlining how each comment was addressed. Major revisions may undergo another round of review.

6. Appeal Process

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a formal appeal with a rationale. Appeals are reviewed impartially by the Editor-in-Chief and, if warranted, forwarded to independent reviewers for re-assessment.

7. Ethical Considerations

PJAI strictly follows the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Unethical practices such as plagiarism, data falsification, duplicate submissions, or breach of confidentiality are grounds for immediate rejection and further action.

8. Confidentiality and Reviewer Responsibilities

All manuscripts and review reports are treated as confidential materials. Reviewers are prohibited from sharing or using the content for personal or professional gain.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Provide constructive and unbiased feedback

• Evaluate manuscripts within the agreed timeline

• Maintain confidentiality and declare any potential conflicts

9. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently, based solely on the scholarly merit of the work. PJAI ensures that the peer review process is free from commercial, political, institutional, or personal influence, thereby preserving the integrity of scientific publishing.