Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

To uphold a high standard of academic publishing, all manuscripts submitted to Journal of Intelligent Unmanned Systems undergo a rigorous peer review process. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring that submissions are original, significant, methodologically sound, and clearly presented.

Reviewer Conduct and Responsibilities

Objectivity and Fairness:

Reviews should be conducted with impartiality. Evaluation must be based solely on the content, regardless of the authors' identity, institution, nationality, gender, ethnicity, or religion. Personal or offensive comments are not acceptable; constructive criticism is essential.

Confidentiality:

All materials under review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers must not share or discuss the manuscript with others or use any data or findings from the submission in their own work without explicit written permission from the authors.

Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., recent collaborations, institutional affiliations, or personal relationships with the authors) and consult the editorial office if uncertain. If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the review.

Timeliness:

Reviews should be completed within the timeframe specified in the review invitation. If you are unable to complete the review on time, please inform the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following aspects:

A. Originality and Significance

Does the manuscript present new and substantial contributions to the field?

Is the topic relevant and timely?

B. Relationship to Existing Literature

Does the paper demonstrate awareness and understanding of the relevant literature?

Are appropriate sources cited?

Has any key literature been overlooked?

C. Methodological Rigor

Is the research built upon a sound theoretical or conceptual framework?

Are the methods clearly described and suitable for the study?

Has the study been appropriately designed and executed?

D. Presentation and Interpretation of Results

Are the results clearly presented, accurately interpreted, and sufficiently supported by data?

Are alternative explanations considered and discussed?

Are the conclusions logically derived from the results?

E. Impact and Implications

Does the study offer meaningful implications for research, practice, or policy?

Does it bridge gaps between theory and application?

F. Clarity and Quality of Writing

Is the manuscript well-organized, with a clear structure and logical flow?

Is the language appropriate for the intended audience?

Are technical terms, acronyms, and data clearly explained?