Peer Review Policy
Effective date: August 15, 2025.
Last revised: September 13, 2026.
Journal: AI and Science Academic Journal
Platform owner: AI Academic Ltd. (AIFC), registration number (BIN) 260940901080, AFSA registration number: AFSA-O-CA-2026-8266.
Technical platform operator: ALTN LLP (Republic of Kazakhstan), providing the technical operation of the website and publishing of the journal on behalf of AI Academic Ltd. under a concluded service agreement.
In this Policy, the term "editorial office" means the editorial body of AI Academic Ltd.
This Policy governs the peer review procedure for articles submitted to the journal's editorial office and sets out the core principles of expert evaluation.
1. General Provisions
1.1. All articles submitted to the editorial office undergo mandatory peer review.
1.2. Peer review is conducted to ensure the quality, scholarly validity and compliance of materials with the journal's requirements.
1.3. The journal adheres to the principles of transparency, objectivity and compliance with COPE ethical standards.
2. Type of Peer Review
2.1. The journal applies a double-blind peer review system.
2.2. The identities of authors and reviewers are not disclosed to one another.
2.3. By decision of the editorial office, other forms of review may be applied (open or single-blind).
3. Review Procedure
3.1. Initial screening of materials is carried out by the editorial board.
3.2. Manuscripts that match the journal's scope and requirements are sent for review to independent experts.
3.3. At least two reviewers are assigned to each article.
3.4. The review period ranges from 2 to 6 weeks.
3.5. Based on the review, one of the following decisions is made:
3.5.1. accept for publication without changes;
3.5.2. accept with minor revisions;
3.5.3. send for revision with a further round of review;
3.5.4. reject.
4. Reviewers' Responsibilities
4.1. Reviewers must provide objective and well-reasoned conclusions.
4.2. Reviewers may not use the materials of an article for personal purposes prior to its publication.
4.3. Reviewers must notify the editorial office if they lack sufficient competence to evaluate the material.
4.4. In the event of a conflict of interest (personal, professional or financial), the reviewer must decline to work on the material.
5. Confidentiality
5.1. All articles are treated as confidential documents.
5.2. Reviewers and the editorial office may not disclose the content of a manuscript to third parties.
5.3. Only members of the editorial office and assigned reviewers have access to manuscripts.
6. Responsibility of the Editorial Office
6.1. The editorial office ensures the fairness and impartiality of the review process.
6.2. In the event of disagreement between reviewers, the editorial office arranges an additional review.
6.3. The final decision on the publication of an article is made by the editor-in-chief or the editorial board.
7. Appeals and Reconsideration
7.1. The author has the right to submit a substantiated appeal to the editorial office in the event of disagreement with the reviewers' decision.
7.2. In such cases, an independent additional review is arranged.
7.3. The editorial office's decision following reconsideration is final.
8. Countering Misconduct
8.1. If plagiarism, data fabrication or other violations are identified, the article is rejected.
8.2. The editorial office is guided by international COPE standards in resolving ethical disputes.