Reviewer Guidelines

Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and relevance of the journal. The review process is designed to ensure rigorous, fair, and constructive evaluation of submissions within the scope of ecosystem intelligence.

1. Scope of Evaluation

Reviewers are asked to assess whether the manuscript makes a meaningful contribution to understanding intelligence across interconnected ecosystems of technologies, infrastructures, data systems, organizations, institutions, and human actors. Evaluation should consider both disciplinary rigor and the relevance of the work to system-of-systems perspectives and cross-domain integration.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

Scientific rigor: The research design, methodology, analysis, and interpretation are sound, transparent, and appropriate.
Relevance to the journal: The manuscript aligns with the scope of ecosystem intelligence and addresses interconnected systems rather than isolated components.
Clarity and structure: The manuscript is well organized, clearly written, and logically structured.
Integration across domains: The work demonstrates awareness of interdisciplinary implications and, where relevant, integrates multiple perspectives.
Use of literature: The manuscript appropriately situates itself within existing research and provides a balanced and relevant synthesis.

3. Review Process

The journal operates a single-anonymous peer review process. Reviewer identities remain anonymous, while author identities are visible to reviewers.

Reviewers are expected to:

Provide a structured and reasoned evaluation addressing the criteria above
Offer constructive and actionable feedback to support improvement of the manuscript
Make a recommendation: accept, minor revisions, major revisions, or reject

Final decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or an assigned handling editor.

4. Ethical Responsibilities

The journal follows internationally recognized standards for publication ethics, including the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the following:

Confidentiality: Manuscripts and associated materials must be treated as confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or used for personal advantage.
Conflict of interest: Reviewers should decline the review if there is any financial, professional, or personal conflict that could bias their judgment.
Objectivity and fairness: Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and free from personal criticism of the authors.
Integrity and originality: Reviewers should inform the editors of any suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, or ethical concerns.

5. Citation Practices and Use of Reviewer’s Own Work

Reviewers may suggest additional references where they are directly relevant and would improve the scientific quality, completeness, or contextualization of the manuscript.

However, reviewers must adhere to the following principles:

Suggested citations must be clearly justified based on relevance and contribution to the manuscript
Reviewers must not request the inclusion of citations primarily to increase citation counts of their own work or that of close collaborators
Any recommendation to cite the reviewer’s own work must be limited, appropriate, and transparently justified in the review comments
Editors may disregard citation suggestions that are not essential to the manuscript

The journal does not tolerate coercive citation practices.

6. Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews within the agreed timeframe. If delays arise, reviewers should inform the editorial office promptly.

7. Constructive Feedback

Reviews should aim to improve the manuscript and support authors in strengthening their work.

Reviewers are encouraged to:

Provide specific and actionable suggestions
Distinguish clearly between major and minor issues
Support critiques with clear reasoning
Acknowledge strengths as well as limitations

8. Interdisciplinary Considerations

Given the interdisciplinary nature of the journal, reviewers should evaluate contributions in relation to the manuscript’s stated objectives and domain context.