Invitation to Review and Acceptance

Reviewers are meticulously selected by the Editorial Board based on their fields of expertise directly related to the manuscript's topic, their scientific background, and their competence in the literature. Invitations are sent via email through our online manuscript management system. The invitation email includes the manuscript title, abstract, and keywords.

To ensure the publication process proceeds smoothly, reviewers are expected to submit their acceptance or decline response to the system within 3 (three) days of receiving the invitation. Before accepting the invitation, please review the abstract to ensure that the topic perfectly matches your area of expertise, that you can provide an objective evaluation within the specified timeframe, and that there are no conflicts of interest.

Conflict of Interest Policy

Reviewers are obligated to disclose to the editorial board any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, institutional, professional, or intellectual ties) that could overshadow the objectivity and impartiality of the evaluation process at the invitation stage. In accordance with COPE standards, the reviewer must decline the invitation and explain the situation to the editor if any of the following conditions exist:

• Having collaborated with the authors on a joint project, publication, or academic study recently (within the last 3 years),
• Working in the same institution, department, or organizations with close commercial/financial relations with the authors,
• The manuscript under review is in direct commercial or legal competition with the reviewer's own ongoing, funded, or patent-pending research,
• Although the manuscript is anonymized, the identity of the authors is correctly guessed, and this situation prevents an unbiased evaluation.

Confidentiality and Generative AI Policy

All manuscript drafts, datasets, algorithms, and supplementary documents sent to reviewers for evaluation are confidential official documents. Reviewers are obliged to protect the security and confidentiality of these documents until the process is completed and the article is officially published:

• The manuscript content, ideas, methods, or raw data cannot be shared or discussed with third parties under any circumstances, nor can they be reviewed by others without the written permission of the editor.
• Unpublished ideas, methods, findings, or software in the reviewed manuscript cannot be used in the reviewer's own research or for personal gain without the explicit written consent of the author and the editor.
• Restriction on Third-Party and AI Systems: In accordance with confidentiality principles, the entire or any part of the manuscript text or its appendices must absolutely not be uploaded to third-party generative AI tools (such as ChatGPT, Claude, etc.) or online translation platforms that perform data mining, train language models, or offer text analysis. Evaluation reports must be authored entirely through the reviewer's own original intellectual contribution.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

The reviewer report should enable the Editor-in-Chief to base the publication decision on rational and scientific grounds, while also providing the author with constructive, concrete, and educational feedback to bring their work up to international standards. You are expected to analyze the following technical and scientific dimensions in detail when preparing your report:

• Originality and Contribution to Literature: Does the study offer a new theoretical or applied approach, an original architecture, or a significant performance improvement in the fields of AI, Edge Computing, or IoT? Is the current state-of-the-art literature adequately analyzed?
• Methodological Soundness and Replicability: Are the proposed algorithms, mathematical models, network topologies, and experimental designs scientifically valid? Are the datasets, simulation environments, and hardware/software parameters presented clearly enough to allow the research to be exactly replicated by another expert?
• Analysis of Findings and Validation: Do the experimental results, presented graphs, and tables statistically and logically support the main conclusions and performance metrics claimed in the manuscript? Are error analyses and limitations objectively discussed?
• Quality of References: Are the cited references up-to-date, directly relevant to the topic, and reflective of high-impact international literature? Do the citations comply with APA 7 formatting standards?
• Academic Language and Clarity: Is the article written in fluent, clear English that fully complies with grammar rules and is suitable for international scientific publication? Are technical terms and acronyms correctly defined?
• Ethical Violations and Suspicious Cases: Is there any suspicion of plagiarism, salami slicing, data fabrication, data falsification, or redundant publication in the study? For studies involving data collection from participants, is the Ethics Committee Approval properly documented in the methodology section? In case of any suspected ethical violation, please inform the editor directly with concrete evidence.

Note: Reviewer comments must be strictly free of personal accusations, professional, constructive, courteous, and objective. The text provided to the author must avoid any expressions that could reveal the reviewer's identity.

Making an Editorial Recommendation

After analyzing the manuscript within the framework of the criteria, the reviewer selects one of the following final editorial recommendations via the system and explains the justification in their report:

• Accept: The study is in excellent condition scientifically, methodologically, and linguistically; it can be published in its current form without the need for any corrections.
• Minor Revision: The study is generally successful; however, there are some expressions that need clarification, reference updates, formatting corrections, or minor technical details that require further explanation. The article can be accepted following the editor's check after the authors make these corrections.
• Major Revision: Although there are valuable ideas at the core of the study, there are serious methodological deficiencies, inadequacies in experimental validation, algorithmic errors, or a need for radical improvement in language quality. Authors must make a comprehensive revision, and the manuscript must be subjected to a re-review process.
• Reject: The study contains serious scientific or methodological flaws, does not provide an original contribution to the literature, falls outside the aims and scope of JAIES, or possesses a weak academic foundation that cannot be salvaged even with radical revisions.

Timeliness and Deadlines

To introduce scientific knowledge to the literature without delay and to prevent authors from experiencing undue hardship, it is critical that evaluation processes be completed on time. JAIES typically allocates a standard period of 3 to 4 weeks (21-30 days) for peer reviews.

If you realize that you will not be able to submit the report on time due to unforeseen circumstances despite having accepted the review invitation, please contact the Field Editor or Editor-in-Chief without delay to request an extension or to allow the assignment of a new reviewer so that the process is not disrupted.