• editor.aipublications@gmail.com
  • Track Your Paper
  • Contact Us

Peer Review Process(Double Blind)

The review method for AI Publications is basically a top quality management mechanism to provide its best publication. This is often the method by which field specialists judge the projected works, and its application to make sure a prime quality of revealed work. However, the peer reviewers don't build the decision to reject or accept the articles however they suggest a decision. At peer-reviewed journal, decision-making authority rests only with the journal’s editorial board.

Normally there are three types of peer review processing for journal publication,

  • Single-blind: names of reviewers are not disclosed to authors
  • Double-blind: names of reviewers and authors are not disclosed to each other
  • Open peer review: Names of authors and reviewers are disclose to each other


All Journals of AI Publications are double blind-reviewed journals. Normally, we elect a minimum of two reviewers for the review. Peer reviewers are specialists in their field. We have a tendency to usually build a pool of peer reviewers that have an honest record of producing high-quality reviews. Or we have a tendency to scan the bibliography to spot potential reviewers or contact researchers they met at conferences and seminars for review process.

The Journal editorial boards consider the report or feedbacks provided by the peer reviewers in a piece of writing and take a call. The foremost common choices, that we have a tendency to make for an article publication, are:

  • Accept the article without any changes (acceptance): publish the article in its original type as provided by the author.
  • Accept the article with minor revisions (acceptance): asks the author to form little corrections and then publish the article.
  • Accept the article once major revisions (modification): raise the authors to form the changes urged by the reviewers and/or editors: after revision publish the article.
  • Revise and resubmit the article (conditional- rejection): the journal fails to simply accept the article within the current spherical and willing to rethink the article in another spherical of decision making once the authors build major changes within the article as urged.
  • Reject the article (rejection): the journal won't publish the article or reconsider it though the authors build major revisions within the article.