Journal of Smart Internet of Things

Open Access Statement

The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users.

Copyright

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribute 4.0 International License (CC BY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Article Processing Charge (APC)

The journal does not have article processing chargers (APCs)

Peer review process

Double-blind peer review.

Once a manuscript is submitted for publication, it undergoes a series of steps to ensure a smooth review and editorial process. The journal's editorial office initially checks the completeness of the files and ensures that all relevant metadata is in order. Subsequently, the manuscript is forwarded to the Chief Editor, who carefully assesses its suitability in terms of scope and quality. If deemed appropriate, the Chief Editor proceeds to send the manuscript to expert reviewers.

The reviewers diligently evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed reports on their findings. Based on the reviewers' feedback, the Editor makes one of the following recommendations: reject the manuscript, request major revisions, or request minor revisions. These recommendations aim to guide the authors towards enhancing the quality and impact of their work.

The Chief Editor maintains ultimate responsibility for the aims and scope of the journal. They are also responsible for handling appeals and addressing any other editorial issues that may arise.

By following this rigorous process, the journal ensures that each manuscript undergoes a thorough evaluation by experts in the field, leading to the publication of high-quality research that aligns with the journal's standards and objectives.

Guidelines for Reviewers

The reviewer report plays a crucial role in the manuscript evaluation process, and therefore it should provide a comprehensive critique rather than just a few brief sentences. While the journal does not require a specific structure for the reports, we strongly encourage reviewers to provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve their manuscript. The report should offer a thoughtful and analytical analysis, particularly when recommending revisions.

To ensure a productive review process, reviewers may include additional confidential comments to the editor if there are specific points they prefer not to share directly with the authors. It is important to note that accepting a paper without any comments is not allowed, as constructive feedback is essential for the authors' growth and manuscript enhancement.

While specific criteria may vary across disciplines, some core aspects that should be addressed in the reviewer report include:

• Validity of Research Questions: Evaluate the soundness and relevance of the research questions addressed in the manuscript.
• Organization and Presentation: Assess the overall structure and organization of the paper, ensuring clarity and coherence. Additionally, comment on the grammatical soundness and readability of the English language used.
• Related Works: Evaluate the adequacy and up-to-dateness of the related works cited in relation to the article's subject.
• Ethical Considerations: Determine if the necessary ethical approvals and consents were obtained, and if the research was conducted in an ethical manner.
• Methods and Study Design: Assess the appropriateness of the methods and study design employed to address the research question.
• Experimental Controls: Evaluate whether the experiments include appropriate controls to ensure reliable results.
• Reproducibility: Comment on the level of detail provided in the reporting of methods, including equipment and materials, to enable the reproduction of the research.
• Clarity and Accuracy of Figures and Tables: Assess the clarity and accuracy of figures and tables in representing the results.
• Discussion of Previous Research: Evaluate the extent to which the authors have discussed relevant previous research and compared their results to existing findings.
• Appropriate Citations: Determine if the citations provided are appropriate, supporting the claims made, and avoiding excessive self-citation.
• Consistency of Results and Conclusions: Assess whether the results presented support the conclusions drawn by the authors.
• Acknowledgment of Limitations: Evaluate if the authors have acknowledged any limitations of their research.
• Accuracy of Abstract: Assess whether the abstract provides an accurate summary of the research and results without any spin or exaggeration.

By addressing these key aspects in the reviewer report, the journal aims to ensure a comprehensive evaluation of manuscripts, promote high-quality research, and provide authors with valuable feedback to enhance their work.