Journal of Computation Science and Artificial Intelligence (JCSAI)
Publisher: PT Berkah Digital Teknologi
Editorial platform: Open Journal Systems
These Editorial Guidelines establish the procedures and responsibilities that must be followed by the Editor-in-Chief, managing editors, section editors, editorial board members, copyeditors, layout editors, proofreaders, and other editorial personnel of the Journal of Computation Science and Artificial Intelligence, hereafter referred to as JCSAI.
The guidelines are intended to ensure that every manuscript is handled:
fairly;
independently;
consistently;
confidentially;
transparently;
professionally;
efficiently;
according to the journal’s aims and scope;
according to established research and publication-ethics principles; and
through a documented editorial process in Open Journal Systems.
All regular submissions must be managed through the official JCSAI Open Journal Systems platform. Editorial decisions must not be based solely on personal email, messaging applications, verbal communication, or other unofficial channels.
Where communication takes place outside OJS because of a technical or exceptional circumstance, the responsible editor must record the material information and decision in the manuscript’s OJS editorial history.
The Editor-in-Chief has final responsibility for the academic quality and integrity of JCSAI.
The Editor-in-Chief may delegate manuscript handling to a managing editor or section editor. However, delegation does not remove the journal’s responsibility to ensure that the manuscript is evaluated fairly and appropriately.
Editors shall:
make decisions based on academic merit and publication ethics;
protect the confidentiality of manuscripts and editorial records;
identify and manage conflicts of interest;
ensure that appropriate reviewers are selected;
protect the integrity of the double-blind peer-review process;
assess reviewer reports critically;
communicate decisions clearly and professionally;
provide authors with a reasonable opportunity to respond to comments;
maintain a complete editorial audit trail in OJS;
ensure that accepted manuscripts complete copyediting, layout, proofreading, and metadata verification;
respond appropriately to suspected misconduct; and
protect the reliability of the scholarly record.
Reviewers provide recommendations and expert advice. Reviewers do not independently accept or reject manuscripts. The final decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally authorized to make that decision.
The publisher, journal owner, sponsor, advertiser, commercial partner, or payment administrator must not determine the acceptance or rejection of an individual manuscript.
Manuscripts shall be evaluated according to:
relevance to the aims and scope;
originality;
scholarly or technological contribution;
clarity of the research problem;
appropriateness of the methodology;
reliability of data and analysis;
validity of conclusions;
quality of academic writing;
ethical compliance; and
significance for the field.
Editors must not discriminate against authors based on:
nationality;
ethnicity;
religion;
gender;
political belief;
institutional affiliation;
geographic location;
disability;
academic seniority; or
personal relationship.
Editors must treat the following as confidential:
submitted manuscripts;
supplementary files;
author identities during blinded review;
reviewer identities;
reviewer reports;
editorial discussions;
research data not intended for public release;
ethical documents;
internal editorial notes; and
unpublished decisions.
Editors must not use unpublished information obtained through manuscript handling for personal research, commercial advantage, competition, or the benefit of another person.
Editors must communicate respectfully and professionally. Editorial correspondence must not contain:
insulting language;
personal criticism;
threats;
discriminatory statements;
unsupported allegations;
coercive citation requests; or
promises of acceptance.
Every important action should be recorded in OJS, including:
editor assignment;
reviewer invitations;
reviewer responses;
review reports;
revision requests;
author responses;
editorial decisions;
ethical concerns;
copyediting records;
proof approval; and
publication preparation.
All regular manuscripts must be submitted through the official JCSAI OJS submission system.
When a manuscript enters the Submission stage, the Editor-in-Chief, managing editor, or assigned editorial staff shall confirm that:
the submission is visible in the OJS submission queue;
a submission identification number has been generated;
the corresponding author has an active account;
the manuscript file can be opened;
the submission metadata is available;
the submission section has been selected;
all required declarations have been provided; and
no obvious technical problem prevents further processing.
An editor must not treat a manuscript sent only through personal email, WhatsApp, social media, or another unofficial channel as a completed formal submission.
When a manuscript is initially received outside OJS because of a documented technical problem, the author must still complete the official OJS submission before editorial assessment proceeds.
The responsible editor should open:
Submissions → Unassigned/Active Submissions → Open Submission
The editor should review:
submission files;
submission metadata;
author information;
discussions;
declarations;
supplementary files; and
submission history.
The editor must not immediately send the manuscript to external reviewers before administrative and editorial screening have been completed.
Administrative screening determines whether the submission is technically complete and suitable to enter editorial evaluation.
The screening should examine:
The editor or editorial assistant shall verify that:
the manuscript uses the current JCSAI template;
the file is editable;
the document is not corrupted;
tracked changes and unresolved comments have been removed;
the manuscript is readable;
tables and figures are visible;
references are included;
the document is suitable for double-blind review; and
author-identifying information has been removed from the blinded manuscript.
The editor shall verify that OJS contains:
the complete article title;
abstract;
keywords;
names of all authors;
author order;
institutional affiliations;
city and country;
corresponding-author designation;
valid email addresses;
ORCID identifiers where available;
funding information;
conflict-of-interest statement;
data availability information; and
other required metadata.
Metadata entered in OJS must be consistent with the title page and manuscript.
The editor shall verify the availability of relevant statements concerning:
originality;
exclusive submission;
authorship approval;
funding;
conflicts of interest;
ethical approval;
informed consent;
data availability;
use of generative artificial intelligence;
preprint or prior dissemination;
copyright permissions; and
related manuscripts or publications.
After screening, the editor may:
return the submission for technical correction;
request missing information;
proceed to scope and quality screening;
administratively decline an incomplete submission; or
refer a suspected ethical issue for further assessment.
Administrative screening does not constitute acceptance and does not replace scientific evaluation.
Use the Discussion function in the Submission stage to request administrative corrections.
The manuscript should remain in the Submission stage until the required technical corrections are completed.
The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately qualified editor shall conduct an initial academic assessment.
The assessment shall consider:
whether the subject is within the aims and scope of JCSAI;
whether the article presents a clear research problem;
whether the manuscript offers an identifiable contribution;
whether the method is appropriate for the research question;
whether the data and analysis appear adequate;
whether the conclusions are supported by the findings;
whether the references are sufficiently relevant and current;
whether the article has adequate academic structure;
whether the language is sufficiently clear for peer review;
whether the article complies with research ethics;
whether the article is more than a routine implementation report; and
whether external review would be a responsible use of reviewer time.
A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it:
falls outside the journal’s scope;
lacks an identifiable scholarly contribution;
merely describes the construction of an application without adequate evaluation;
applies a common algorithm without comparison, validation, or analysis;
contains serious methodological weaknesses;
has conclusions unsupported by the data;
contains substantial ethical concerns;
is substantially incomplete;
does not meet minimum language or presentation standards;
duplicates previously published work;
contains substantial unattributed overlap;
contains unreliable or unverifiable information; or
does not meet the editorial standard required for peer review.
A desk-rejection decision should be communicated respectfully and should state the principal reason for the decision.
When a manuscript is relevant and potentially valuable but requires limited preliminary correction, the editor may return it to the author before external review.
This preliminary correction should not be used to provide extensive unpaid rewriting or to repeatedly process a manuscript that remains below the journal’s minimum standard.
Following the initial assessment, the editor may use:
Send to Review when the manuscript is ready for peer review;
Decline Submission when the manuscript is unsuitable; or
the Submission-stage Discussion function when preliminary correction is required.
Every manuscript considered for external review may be examined using similarity-detection software and editorial assessment.
The similarity report is an investigative aid and not an automatic determination of plagiarism.
Editors shall evaluate:
the overall pattern of overlap;
the source of overlap;
the location of overlapping text;
whether the source is cited;
whether quotation is appropriate;
overlap in the introduction, method, results, discussion, or conclusion;
overlap with the authors’ previous work;
reuse of figures, tables, code, or datasets;
translated plagiarism;
duplicated or manipulated content; and
whether the overlap misrepresents the manuscript’s originality.
No manuscript should be accepted or rejected solely because of one numerical similarity percentage.
The editor may:
proceed to review when no material concern is identified;
request clarification;
request correction and proper attribution;
return the manuscript before review;
decline the manuscript;
pause the editorial process; or
initiate an ethical assessment.
The following practices may constitute misconduct:
inserting invisible characters;
converting copied text into images;
intentionally misspelling words;
replacing words mechanically to conceal copied sentence structures;
manipulating file properties;
presenting translated material without attribution; or
using other methods intended to evade detection.
The similarity report should be uploaded as a confidential editorial file or recorded in an internal editorial note.
Similarity reports containing sensitive information must not be made publicly accessible.
A manuscript that passes initial screening shall be assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise.
The Editor-in-Chief may:
handle the manuscript directly;
assign it to a managing editor;
assign it to a section editor; or
appoint a qualified guest editor for a specific manuscript or special issue.
The assigned editor should:
understand the manuscript’s subject;
have appropriate scholarly competence;
have no disqualifying conflict of interest;
have sufficient time to manage the process;
be able to evaluate reviewer recommendations; and
agree to protect confidentiality.
Editors must not be assigned merely because of personal relationships with the authors.
The handling editor is responsible for:
checking the manuscript’s readiness for review;
selecting qualified reviewers;
verifying conflicts of interest;
monitoring reviewer responses;
evaluating review quality;
requesting additional review when necessary;
preparing editorial decisions;
monitoring revisions;
maintaining the OJS record; and
recommending or issuing a final decision according to assigned authority.
In the Submission stage, use:
Participants → Assign
Select the appropriate editor or section editor and ensure that the assigned role provides access to the required workflow stages.
Each research article should normally receive completed assessments from at least two qualified independent reviewers.
The handling editor shall not select reviewers solely for convenience or personal familiarity.
A reviewer should have:
expertise relevant to the manuscript;
evidence of research or professional activity in the field;
adequate methodological competence;
an appropriate publication record;
no disqualifying conflict of interest;
the ability to provide a timely review; and
a record of professional conduct.
Evidence may include:
relevant scholarly publications;
ORCID profile;
institutional profile;
Google Scholar profile;
Scopus profile;
SINTA profile;
professional expertise; or
previous high-quality review performance.
Editors should normally avoid reviewers who:
are affiliated with the same institution as an author;
have recently co-authored with an author;
are current supervisors, students, or close collaborators of an author;
have a direct personal relationship with an author;
have a financial interest in the outcome;
are involved in a direct academic dispute with an author;
contributed to the research; or
are otherwise unable to provide an impartial assessment.
Where possible, the two reviewers should:
come from different institutions;
not both be from the journal publisher’s institution;
provide complementary subject or methodological expertise; and
reflect the broader scholarly community relevant to the manuscript.
Authors may suggest reviewers when permitted by the journal, but editors are not obligated to use them.
Any suggested reviewer must be independently verified. Editors must not use an unverified reviewer identity or an email address that creates a risk of manipulated peer review.
After selecting Send to Review, use:
Review → Add Reviewer
The editor should examine:
reviewer expertise;
institutional affiliation;
previous review history;
average response time;
completion history;
editorial notes;
possible conflicts; and
verified contact information.
Before sending a review invitation, the editor must consider whether the reviewer has an actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest.
The reviewer invitation should require the reviewer to disclose conflicts before accepting the assignment.
employment at the same institution as an author;
recent collaboration or co-authorship;
supervisory or student relationships;
family or close personal relationships;
financial interests;
direct academic competition;
involvement in the submitted research;
prior access to the manuscript;
advisory or consultancy relationships;
institutional disputes; or
strong personal or ideological positions that could affect impartiality.
An editor must not handle a manuscript when the editor:
is an author;
is a close collaborator of an author;
works in the same immediate unit as an author;
directly supervised or was supervised by an author;
has a close personal relationship with an author;
has a direct financial interest; or
cannot make an impartial decision.
The manuscript must be assigned to another independent editor.
When a conflict becomes apparent after a reviewer has begun, the handling editor shall determine whether:
the reviewer can continue impartially;
the review must be discontinued;
a replacement reviewer is required; or
an already submitted report can be considered.
The decision and reasoning should be documented internally.
JCSAI applies a double-blind peer-review model for regular research manuscripts.
Under this model:
reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities; and
authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
Before sending a manuscript to reviewers, the editor must verify that the review file does not contain:
author names;
affiliations;
email addresses;
biographies;
acknowledgments identifying the authors;
identifying headers or footers;
document properties revealing authorship; or
supplementary files that unnecessarily reveal author identity.
Reviewer identity must not be disclosed to authors through:
reviewer comments;
uploaded files;
file names;
tracked-change names;
document properties;
email forwarding; or
OJS discussions visible to the author.
Reviewers shall be asked to assess:
relevance to the journal;
originality and contribution;
research problem and objectives;
theoretical or conceptual basis;
methodological rigor;
data quality;
technical correctness;
adequacy of analysis;
reproducibility where applicable;
interpretation of results;
quality of discussion;
validity of conclusions;
ethical compliance;
presentation of tables and figures;
quality and relevance of references;
language and readability; and
suspected misconduct or undisclosed overlap.
Reviewers must not:
share the manuscript;
contact the authors directly;
use unpublished information;
delegate the review without permission;
upload the manuscript to a public AI system;
disclose the review;
delay review for competitive advantage; or
use the process to obtain personal citations.
Reviewers may recommend:
accept;
minor revision;
major revision;
resubmit for review; or
reject.
The recommendation must be supported by clear academic reasoning.
Set:
response due date;
review due date;
review type;
reviewer instructions;
review form;
files accessible to reviewers; and
confidentiality settings.
Reviewer comments intended only for editors must not be forwarded automatically to authors.
The handling editor must assess the quality of each completed review before using it in a decision.
A useful review should be:
relevant;
sufficiently detailed;
evidence-based;
constructive;
respectful;
free from discriminatory language;
free from inappropriate citation pressure;
consistent with the reviewer’s expertise; and
clear about major and minor concerns.
A report may be considered inadequate when it:
contains only a recommendation without explanation;
discusses matters outside the manuscript;
uses insulting or hostile language;
requests irrelevant citations;
shows a serious misunderstanding of the study;
reveals a conflict of interest;
breaches confidentiality;
appears to be generated without genuine assessment; or
provides no useful basis for an editorial decision.
The editor may:
ask the reviewer to revise the report;
disregard inappropriate parts;
invite another reviewer;
discontinue use of the reviewer; or
record a confidential performance note.
Substantive reviewer opinions must not be changed by the editor. Offensive language, personal information, or content that breaches journal policy may be withheld or returned to the reviewer for revision.
After the required reviews are completed, the handling editor must evaluate:
the manuscript;
all reviewer reports;
the consistency of the reviews;
the strength of reviewer arguments;
methodological and ethical issues;
the importance of the requested revisions;
the authors’ ability to address the concerns; and
the journal’s quality standards.
Reviewers’ recommendations are advisory. The editor must exercise independent academic judgment.
When reviewers provide similar recommendations, the editor should still confirm that the reports are sufficiently reasoned and that the recommendation is appropriate.
When reports differ substantially, the editor may:
examine which report is better supported;
request clarification from one or both reviewers;
invite an additional reviewer;
request a major revision before obtaining further review;
consult another qualified editor; or
make an independent decision supported by clear academic reasoning.
A third reviewer should not be invited merely to obtain a desired recommendation.
The decision letter should:
state the decision clearly;
summarize the principal editorial concerns;
provide relevant reviewer comments;
distinguish required revisions from optional suggestions;
provide a revision deadline where applicable;
explain whether the revision will be reviewed again; and
use respectful professional language.
Use the appropriate Review-stage decision, such as:
Request Revisions;
Resubmit for Review;
Accept Submission; or
Decline Submission.
Revised manuscripts must be submitted through OJS.
Authors should provide:
a revised manuscript;
a point-by-point response;
a clear explanation of changes;
page or line references where applicable; and
reasons for recommendations not followed.
The editor shall determine whether:
all major reviewer comments were addressed;
the response is complete;
the revised method and analysis are adequate;
new inconsistencies were introduced;
conclusions remain supported;
ethical concerns were resolved;
citations added during revision are appropriate; and
the manuscript meets the required standard.
Minor revisions may normally be evaluated by the handling editor when they involve:
clarification;
limited textual corrections;
reference improvements;
minor presentation changes; or
corrections that do not materially alter the research.
Major revisions should normally be returned to reviewers when they involve:
substantial methodological changes;
new data;
new analysis;
major restructuring;
significant changes to findings;
major theoretical revision; or
unresolved reviewer concerns requiring specialist evaluation.
Additional rounds may be used when necessary, but editors should avoid unnecessary repeated review.
New major demands should not be introduced late in the process unless:
the revision created a new issue;
an important issue was previously overlooked;
new evidence requires reconsideration; or
an ethical or reliability concern has emerged.
When authors do not submit a revision within the specified period and provide no communication, the editor may:
send a reminder;
grant an extension;
administratively close the submission; or
decline the manuscript.
Use the Review-stage discussion and decision functions. Revised files must be uploaded to the correct revision area and should not replace the historical files in a way that destroys the audit trail.
The final decision shall be made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor who has been formally authorized to make final decisions.
A manuscript should be accepted only when:
it falls within the journal’s scope;
its scholarly contribution is adequate;
the methodology and analysis are acceptable;
the conclusions are supported;
the required peer reviews have been completed;
major reviewer concerns have been resolved;
ethical requirements have been satisfied;
authorship and declarations are complete;
significant overlap has been resolved;
the final manuscript is complete; and
no unresolved issue threatens the reliability of the article.
Payment of an Article Processing Charge must not form part of the acceptance decision.
The journal may issue:
accept;
minor revision;
major revision;
resubmit for review;
reject; or
administrative closure.
Formal acceptance must be communicated through OJS or an authorized official journal communication.
An informal message from an editor, reviewer, staff member, or other individual does not constitute final acceptance.
Acceptance may be reconsidered when serious concerns emerge before publication, including:
plagiarism;
fabricated or falsified data;
duplicate publication;
authorship disputes;
false ethical approval;
manipulated peer review;
copyright infringement;
major analytical error; or
another issue affecting article reliability.
An author may appeal according to the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. An appeal should be assessed by an editor who was not solely responsible for the disputed decision whenever feasible.
When accepted, use:
Accept Submission → Send to Copyediting
Ensure that the final clean manuscript and relevant declarations are available before moving the submission to Copyediting.
The purpose of copyediting is to improve accuracy, clarity, consistency, and compliance with JCSAI style without changing the scientific meaning of the article.
Copyediting should include verification of:
title;
abstract;
keywords;
headings;
terminology;
grammar;
tables;
figures;
equations;
in-text citations;
reference list;
author names;
affiliations;
acknowledgments;
funding statement;
conflict-of-interest declaration;
ethical approval statement;
data availability statement;
AI-use disclosure; and
copyright permissions.
The copyeditor shall:
identify unclear passages;
correct stylistic inconsistencies;
check citation-reference correspondence;
identify incomplete references;
check table and figure numbering;
issue author queries;
preserve technical meaning; and
upload the edited file to OJS.
Authors must be given an opportunity to respond to substantive copyediting queries.
Copyeditors must not:
change findings;
alter statistical values without verification;
introduce new interpretations;
change authorship;
remove limitations; or
materially rewrite the scientific content without author and editor approval.
In the Copyediting stage:
assign the copyeditor;
upload the final accepted manuscript;
use Copyediting Discussions for queries;
upload the copyedited file;
obtain author or editor confirmation; and
send the approved file to Production.
After copyediting, the approved manuscript moves to the Production stage.
The layout editor shall prepare the article according to the official JCSAI format.
The layout process includes:
page size and margins;
journal header and footer;
article title;
author details;
abstract and keywords;
heading hierarchy;
tables and figures;
equations;
references;
pagination or article numbering;
DOI display;
copyright notice;
Creative Commons license;
received, revised, accepted, and published dates where applicable; and
other journal identifiers.
The production-ready article should be uploaded as a publication galley, normally in PDF format and in other formats when provided by the journal.
The file name, galley label, and document properties must not contain the identity of another journal, template provider, publisher, or unrelated institution.
The corresponding author and editorial team should verify:
title;
author names and order;
affiliations;
corresponding-author information;
ORCID identifiers;
abstract;
keywords;
tables;
figures;
equations;
page numbers;
citations;
references;
acknowledgments;
funding;
conflicts of interest;
data availability;
ethics statement;
DOI;
license; and
publication dates.
Proofreading is not normally an opportunity to add major new data, analyses, authors, or sections.
In the Production stage:
assign the layout editor where applicable;
upload the production-ready file;
create the publication galley;
open a proofreading discussion;
record author approval;
upload corrected proofs; and
retain only the approved final galley for publication.
Metadata verification must be completed before scheduling an article for publication.
The responsible editor or production editor shall compare:
OJS metadata;
title-page information;
final PDF or other galley;
Crossref or DOI metadata;
issue information; and
relevant author declarations.
Verify:
article title;
title capitalization;
abstract;
keywords;
full author names;
author order;
affiliations;
city and country;
corresponding author;
email address;
ORCID identifiers;
references;
article section;
language;
funding information;
conflict-of-interest statement;
data availability statement;
ethical approval;
AI-use declaration;
copyright holder;
license;
DOI;
volume and issue;
publication year;
page range or article number;
received date;
revised date;
accepted date; and
publication date.
The following must be identical across the OJS metadata and final article:
title;
author names;
author order;
affiliations;
volume;
issue;
year;
page range;
DOI; and
license.
Metadata must not contain:
abbreviations belonging to another journal;
another publisher’s name;
incorrect article titles;
incomplete author information;
overlapping page ranges;
inconsistent publication dates; or
broken references.
Authors may be requested to verify the final metadata. However, the journal retains responsibility for performing its own quality control.
Metadata errors identified before publication must be corrected before the article is scheduled.
Open the submission’s Publication tab and verify all metadata fields before assigning the article to an issue.
An article may be published only after the editorial, ethical, production, and metadata checks have been completed.
Before publication, the editor shall confirm that:
a formal acceptance decision exists;
the required peer-review records are complete;
the final approved manuscript is available;
copyediting has been completed;
proofreading has been completed;
the author has approved the proof;
the publication galley opens correctly;
metadata is complete;
the DOI is prepared;
the article has been assigned to the correct issue;
the page range does not overlap;
the license is displayed correctly; and
the issue publication date is accurate.
The article must be assigned to the correct:
volume;
issue;
year;
section;
publication order; and
page range or article number.
The issue should not be declared published before its intended publication date and before all articles intended for the issue are ready, unless JCSAI has formally adopted and publicly explained a continuous-publication model.
The DOI and article metadata must accurately correspond to the final article.
JCSAI must not claim guaranteed indexing. Publication in JCSAI does not automatically guarantee inclusion in every external indexing service.
After publication, the responsible editor should verify the public article page and confirm that:
the article is accessible;
the galley opens;
the DOI resolves correctly;
the author names are displayed;
the citation format is complete;
the abstract and keywords are visible;
the page range is correct;
the issue table of contents is correct; and
the license and copyright information are displayed.
An editor, editorial board member, reviewer, or publisher employee may submit a manuscript, but that person must not participate in:
selecting the handling editor;
selecting reviewers;
viewing confidential reviewer identities;
evaluating reviewer reports;
making the editorial decision; or
influencing publication timing.
The manuscript must be assigned to an independent editor. The published article should include an appropriate disclosure when required.
The same scholarly and ethical standards must apply to internal and external authors.
Special issues must follow the same standards as regular issues.
Guest editors shall:
disclose conflicts of interest;
follow JCSAI review policies;
use OJS;
maintain confidentiality;
avoid preferential treatment;
ensure independent review;
document decisions; and
remain subject to oversight by the Editor-in-Chief.
The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the integrity of the special issue and may review or overturn a guest editor’s recommendation when journal standards have not been followed.
When an editor identifies possible:
plagiarism;
data fabrication;
data falsification;
duplicate submission;
duplicate publication;
authorship manipulation;
fabricated reviewer identity;
peer-review manipulation;
citation manipulation;
unethical research;
false ethical approval;
undisclosed conflicts of interest;
copyright infringement;
inappropriate AI use; or
another serious concern,
the normal editorial process should be paused when necessary.
The editor shall:
preserve the relevant records;
document the concern;
avoid making unsupported accusations;
notify the Editor-in-Chief;
request an explanation or evidence;
assess the response;
consult an independent expert when needed;
contact an institution or ethics committee when appropriate;
make a proportionate decision; and
retain an audit trail.
A manuscript must not be accepted while a serious unresolved integrity concern remains.
Editors must not upload confidential manuscripts, supplementary files, reviewer reports, unpublished data, author identities, or reviewer identities to publicly accessible generative AI systems.
Generative AI may not replace:
editorial judgment;
scope assessment;
methodological evaluation;
ethical assessment;
evaluation of reviewer reports; or
final decision-making.
An editor remains personally accountable for every editorial communication and decision issued under the editor’s name.
AI-generated summaries or recommendations must not be treated as independent peer review.
JCSAI shall maintain adequate records of:
submission dates;
editor assignments;
administrative screening;
similarity screening;
reviewer invitations;
reviewer responses;
review reports;
author revisions;
editorial decisions;
ethical correspondence;
copyediting;
proofreading;
metadata verification;
proof approval; and
publication.
Editorial records must be protected from unauthorized access and retained according to the journal’s record-management requirements.
Editors must not delete files or discussions merely to conceal errors, delays, conflicts, or deviations from procedure.
Corrections to editorial records should be transparent and should preserve the historical audit trail where technically possible.
The Editor-in-Chief and managing editor should periodically review:
average time to initial screening;
desk-rejection decisions;
reviewer invitation acceptance;
reviewer completion time;
review quality;
number of review rounds;
decision consistency;
author complaints;
ethical cases;
copyediting accuracy;
metadata errors;
DOI accuracy;
publication regularity; and
post-publication corrections.
Reviewers who repeatedly submit late, superficial, biased, offensive, or unethical reports may be removed from active assignments.
Editors who repeatedly fail to follow journal policy may have their manuscript-handling authority reviewed.
The JCSAI editorial process follows this sequence:
submission received through OJS;
administrative screening;
scope and quality screening;
similarity screening;
assignment to a qualified editor;
selection of at least two qualified reviewers;
conflict-of-interest verification;
double-blind peer review;
editorial evaluation;
revision monitoring;
final editorial decision;
copyediting;
layout and proofreading;
metadata verification; and
publication.
No stage should be skipped merely to accelerate publication, satisfy an author, meet an issue quota, obtain a publication fee, or respond to pressure from the publisher or another party.
These Editorial Guidelines apply to all editors and editorial personnel involved in JCSAI.
Editors must also comply with the journal’s:
Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement;
Peer Review Process;
Reviewer Guidelines;
Author Guidelines;
Plagiarism Policy;
Conflict-of-Interest Policy;
Authorship and Contributorship Policy;
Generative AI Policy;
Complaints and Appeals Policy;
Correction and Retraction Policy;
Copyright and Licensing Policy; and
Article Processing Charge Policy.
Where an issue is not expressly covered, the Editor-in-Chief may consult recognized publication-ethics guidance, independent subject experts, ethics committees, institutional authorities, or applicable regulations.
Last updated: August 2026
INFORMATION
Journal:
Journal of Computation Science and Artificial Intelligence
Abbreviation: JCSAI
e-ISSN: 3032-4653
Publisher:
PT Berkah Digital Teknologi
Frequency:
Twice a year
Peer Review:
Double-blind peer review
Languages:
English and Indonesian
Access:
Open access
License:
CC BY 4.0
TEMPLATE
VISITORS
