Reviewer Guidelines

Learning Nexus of Computing (LNC) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, fair, transparent, and objective peer-review process. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

These guidelines are intended to assist reviewers in conducting professional, constructive, and unbiased reviews that contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

2. Purpose of Peer Review

The objectives of peer review are to:

  • Evaluate the originality and scientific contribution of the manuscript.

  • Assess the technical quality and methodological soundness of the research.

  • Verify the clarity, organization, and completeness of the manuscript.

  • Ensure compliance with publication ethics.

  • Provide constructive feedback to improve the quality of the manuscript.

  • Assist editors in making informed editorial decisions.

3. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Accept review invitations only when they have appropriate expertise.

  • Complete reviews within the requested timeframe.

  • Maintain strict confidentiality.

  • Declare any conflicts of interest.

  • Provide objective, evidence-based comments.

  • Focus on improving the manuscript through constructive suggestions.

  • Respect the authors' intellectual property.

4. Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must not:

  • Share manuscripts with others without editorial permission.

  • Upload confidential manuscripts to AI tools or public online services.

  • Use unpublished data for personal research.

  • Discuss manuscript contents with unauthorized individuals.

Confidentiality must be maintained before, during, and after the review process.

5. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline the review if they have:

  • Personal relationships with the authors.

  • Recent collaboration with any author.

  • Institutional affiliation with the authors.

  • Financial interests related to the manuscript.

  • Academic competition that could affect impartiality.

  • Any circumstance that may compromise objective judgment.

Any potential conflict should be disclosed immediately to the Editorial Office.

6. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers should immediately notify the Editor if they suspect:

  • Plagiarism.

  • Duplicate publication.

  • Data fabrication or falsification.

  • Image manipulation.

  • Citation manipulation.

  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.

  • Ethical approval concerns.

  • Authorship disputes.

  • Research misconduct.

Reviewers are not expected to conduct formal investigations but should report any concerns supported by reasonable evidence.

7. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript based on the following criteria:

Originality

  • Is the research novel?

  • Does it contribute new knowledge?

Technical Quality

  • Is the methodology appropriate?

  • Are the experiments well designed?

  • Are the analyses scientifically sound?

Significance

  • Does the work make a meaningful contribution to the field?

  • Is the research relevant to the journal's scope?

Presentation

  • Is the manuscript well organized?

  • Is the language clear and professional?

  • Are the figures and tables appropriate?

References

  • Are references current and relevant?

  • Are important publications properly cited?

  • Is the citation style consistent?

Ethics

  • Are ethical standards adequately addressed?

  • Are required declarations included?

8. Reviewer Comments

Reviewers should provide:

Comments to the Authors

Constructive comments that help improve the manuscript.

Suggestions should:

  • Be specific.

  • Be respectful.

  • Be evidence-based.

  • Clearly identify strengths and weaknesses.

Confidential Comments to the Editor

Reviewers may provide confidential comments intended only for the Editorial Office, including concerns regarding ethics, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, or publication suitability.

9. Editorial Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board.

10. Timeliness

Reviewers are requested to:

  • Respond promptly to review invitations.

  • Inform the Editorial Office immediately if they cannot complete the review.

  • Submit reviews within the specified deadline.

Timely reviews support efficient editorial processing and benefit both authors and readers.

11. Use of Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers should not use AI tools in any manner that compromises manuscript confidentiality.

If AI-assisted tools are used for language improvement of review comments, reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, confidentiality, and originality of the review.

AI systems must not replace independent scholarly judgment.

12. Recognition of Reviewers

Learning Nexus of Computing values the voluntary contributions of reviewers.

The journal may, where appropriate:

  • Acknowledge reviewer contributions collectively.

  • Issue reviewer certificates.

  • Provide letters of appreciation.

  • Recognize outstanding reviewers through editorial initiatives.

Recognition will always respect reviewer confidentiality.

13. Contact

Questions regarding the peer-review process should be directed to the Editorial Office through the official communication channels available on the Learning Nexus of Computing website.

The Editorial Office appreciates the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of the journal.