Peer Review Policy

Frontiers and Perspectives in AI Transformation (FPAIT) is committed to maintaining high standards of academic quality, integrity, objectivity, and fairness through a rigorous double-blind peer review process.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their relevance to the journal's scope, originality, scholarly quality, ethical compliance, and adherence to submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be rejected without external peer review.

2. Double-Blind Peer Review

FPAIT follows a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in artificial intelligence, digital transformation, or the manuscript's specific subject area.

3. Selection of Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research experience, independence, and ability to provide an objective scholarly assessment.

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest and should decline a review where their impartiality could reasonably be affected.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • originality and scholarly contribution;

  • relevance to the journal's aims and scope;

  • soundness of methodology and analysis;

  • clarity and organization of the manuscript;

  • validity of results, arguments, and conclusions;

  • appropriate engagement with relevant literature;

  • ethical compliance and research integrity; and

  • significance for AI transformation, research, policy, industry, or society, where applicable.

5. Reviewer Recommendations

Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revision

  • Major Revision

  • Reject

Reviewer recommendations inform the editorial decision but do not independently determine the final outcome.

6. Revision and Re-Review

Authors receiving a revision decision should address reviewer and editor comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the revisions made.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editorial team, depending on the extent and nature of the revisions.

7. Conflicting Reviewer Reports

When reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the editor may assess the reports, seek clarification, or obtain an additional independent review before making a decision.

8. Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts and peer review materials are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose or improperly use unpublished information obtained through the review process.

9. Ethical Concerns

Any concerns regarding plagiarism, fabricated or falsified data, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed conflicts of interest, manipulated content, duplicate publication, or other forms of research misconduct will be investigated according to the journal's publication ethics procedures.

10. Final Editorial Decision

The final decision to accept, request revision, or reject a manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor.

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, originality, methodological quality, relevance, ethical integrity, reviewer assessments, and suitability for Frontiers and Perspectives in AI Transformation (FPAIT).

Editorial decisions are made independently and are not influenced by financial or other inappropriate considerations.