THE PEER-REVIEW PROCESS

The peer-review process of the Journal of Computer Science and Control Systems
(JCSCS) is double blinded: the authors do not have access to the information of who
are the peer-reviewers and the reviewers do not know who are the authors of the
submitted paper.

The Editor-in-Chief and / or an Executive Editor decide if each paper corresponds to
the topics of the journal and if it fulfills the quality requirements in order to
follow the review process. The rejected papers will be not further processed.

The designated Executive Editor supervises the peer-review process for the papers
accepted for this step of review. For each accepted paper the Executive Editor will
contact an Associate Editor among the Associate Editors of the JCSCS, corresponding
to the topics of the paper. The designed Associate Editor can reject the submitted
paper, delivering to the Executive Editor a report with the reasons of the
rejection. The rejected papers will be not further processed.

The designed Associate Editor assigns the paper for peer-review to (or recommend to
the Executive Editor) at least two independent reviewers (three reviewers,
recommended), among the reviewers of JCSCS database or other well-known researchers
in the field of the accepted paper. The reviewers submit their reports to the
Associate Editor with one of the following actions:

1. Reject: Content inappropriate to the journal or has little merit.
2. Probable Reject: Basic flaws in content or presentation or very poorly written.
3. Marginal Tend to Reject: Not as badly flawed; major effort necessary to make
acceptable but content well-covered in literature already.
4. Marginal Tend to Accept: Content has merit, but accuracy, clarity, completeness,
and/or writing should and could be improved in time.
5. Clear Accept: Content, presentation, and writing meet professional norms;
improvements may be advisable, but acceptable as it is.
6. Must Accept: Candidate for outstanding paper; suggested improvements still
appropriate.

After the submission of the reports from all the reviewers, the Associate Editor can
take one of the following decisions:
a. Publish without changes (action 6);
b. Publish after minor changes (action 5 and / or 4);
c. Review again after major changes (action 3 and / or 2);
d. Reject (action 1).

Depending on her/his decision, the Executive Editor recommends papers for acceptance
or rejection to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief takes the final decision concerning the acceptance for publication.