Review Policy

HCMCOU Journal of Science – Advances in Computational Structures (hereinafter referred to as the Journal) has adopted a double-blind review policy. The peer-review process is confidential and conducted anonymously; the identities of reviewers are not released. All information will be exchanged the Journal online system, if any. 

Reviewer selection is based on many factors: expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our own previous experience of that reviewer. The authors are welcome to suggest suitable reviewers. The Journal appreciates the time that the reviewers devote to assessing the submitted manuscripts and helping to ensure publishing only material of the highest quality. The Journal tries to avoid the reviewers who have recent or ongoing collaborations with the authors or competing financial and/or non-financial interests concerning the work described. The Journal encourages the reviewers to inform about anything that might affect their review.

Only the manuscripts that seem qualified and meet the editorial screening criteria are sent for formal review. The Journal requests the reviewers to submit their reports via our secure online system.

Reviewers are responsible for strictly maintaining the confidentiality of all details of the peer review process on submitted manuscripts. Reviewers may not share any information with anyone or contact the author directly without consulting with the Journal.

When the reviewers agree to access the manuscripts, they need to make sure: (1) The appropriate relation between the manuscript’s content and the reviewer’s area of expertise; (2) The compliance with the Journal’s policies; (3) The availability to assess the manuscript within the requested time (maximum 20 days for the first round and 07 days for second round); (4) The potential conflicts of interest (any competing financial and/or non-financial interests in relation to the manuscripts). Depending on the above conditions’ satisfaction and other personal reasons, the experts may choose to accept or decline the invitation to review the submitted manuscript.

Based on the Review Form provided by the Journal, the reviewers will objectively, academically, freely, and confidentially give their comments/advice about the manuscript. Reviewers are welcome to recommend a particular course of action. The recommendations should instruct the authors on how they can strengthen their paper to the point where it may be acceptable. After review, the reviewer will conclude accepting, rejecting, or requesting the modifications from the author. After receiving the review results, the Journal might go back to the reviewers for further recommendations or provide follow-up advice when having a solid scientific case for reconsideration. Reviewers are expected to acknowledge and accept the recommendations provided by the editor as well as the editor-in-chief's approval results; however, it's important to note that the final decision, as approved by the editor-in-chief, may differ from the results of the reviews.

  • Reviewers' evaluation will focus on the following points:

    • The title

    • The abstract & keywords

    • The introduction

    • The research purposes, context

    • The theoretical basis

    • The research methodology and database

    • The scientific and practical contribution of the article

    • The manuscript’s format and spelling / grammatical errors

    • The reference list

  • Rating the manuscript according to the opinion of the reviewer (including 7 levels):

    • A-Excellence

    • B-Very good

    • C-Good

    • D-Acceptable

    • E-Below average

    • F-Poor

  • Reviewers’ recommendations: Manuscripts judged to be of potential interest to our readership are sent for formal review. After evaluating all of the technical aspects of the manuscripts fully and fairly, the reviewers will select one of the following suggestions:

    • Accept submission (without any revisions)

    • Revisions required (the manuscripts get accepted once the authors have made some revisions in response to the reviewers’ comments, no 2nd review needed)

    • Re-submit for review (Some considerable technical objections have been raised. The revised manuscripts need to be sent back to the reviewers for re-evaluation)

    • Decline submission (The reasons need to be clarified in the evaluation form to explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that rejected authors can understand the basis for the decision)

  • The reviewers’ rating and recommendations should be compatible:

    • Levels A-D: Accept submission (with or without the modification, or resubmit for the second review)

    • Level E-F: Decline submission

  • Final decision: The primary purpose of the review process is to provide the Journal with the information needed to reach a decision. The Journal will consider the reviewers’ points of view to make requests for correction, supplementation, and discussion with the author if necessary.

Click here to see Review Process