The International Journal of Quantum Computing & Agentic AI (IJQCAAI) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review process. Reviewers play a vital role in ensuring the quality, originality, and scientific integrity of published research.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to evaluate submitted manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and professionally. Reviews should provide constructive feedback that helps authors improve the quality of their work while assisting editors in making informed publication decisions.

Confidentiality: All manuscripts received for review are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional advantage before publication.

Originality and Scientific Merit

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript:

  • Presents original and innovative research.
  • Makes a significant contribution to the field.
  • Is technically sound and scientifically valid.
  • Demonstrates clear objectives, methodology, and conclusions.

Data Integrity: Reviewers should carefully examine the consistency of the presented data, figures, tables, and results. Any concerns regarding data manipulation, fabrication, falsification, or inconsistencies should be reported confidentially to the Editorial Office.

Plagiarism and Ethical Concerns

If reviewers identify plagiarism, duplicate publication, copyright infringement, unethical research practices, or suspected AI-generated misconduct, they should immediately inform the Editor with supporting observations.

Constructive Feedback

Reviewer comments should be:

  • Professional and respectful.
  • Clear and evidence-based.
  • Focused on improving the manuscript.
  • Free from personal criticism or bias.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline the review invitation if they have any financial, professional, institutional, or personal conflict of interest that could influence their judgment.

Timeliness

Reviewers are requested to complete their evaluations within the assigned review period. If additional time is required, they should promptly inform the Editorial Office.

Recommendation

After completing the review, reviewers should recommend one of the following:

Accept Accept as is
Minor Revision Minor revisions required
Major Revision Major revisions required
Reject Reject the manuscript

The final publication decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Board.

Ethical Commitment: By accepting a review invitation, reviewers agree to uphold the principles of confidentiality, impartiality, academic integrity, and ethical peer review while supporting the advancement of high-quality scientific research.

Reviewer Checklist

Maintain Confidentiality
Keep all manuscript details confidential
Assess Originality
Evaluate innovation and scientific merit
Verify Data Integrity
Check consistency of data and results
Identify Ethical Issues
Report plagiarism or misconduct concerns
Provide Constructive Feedback
Give clear, professional, evidence-based comments
Avoid Conflicts
Decline if any conflict of interest exists