PEER REVIEW PROCESS

Applied Information System and Management (AISM) evaluates every manuscript through a structured, double-blind peer review process. Manuscripts are assessed on their relevance to the journal's Focus and Scope, originality, methodological quality, contribution to Information Systems and Information Systems Management, clarity, and compliance with publication ethics. The process follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

At a Glance

Review model Double-blind: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other
Number of reviewers At least two independent reviewers for each manuscript
Similarity limit Below 20% (Turnitin), with AI detection below 30%
First decision Around two months from submission
Submission to publication Around four months
Final decision Editor in Chief
Use of AI by reviewers Not permitted

Review Stages

1Initial Editorial Screening
The editor checks the manuscript's fit with the focus and scope, its basic academic quality, and its compliance with the Author Guidelines and template. Manuscripts outside the scope or seriously below the journal's standards are declined at this stage, usually within two weeks.
2Similarity and Ethics Screening
The manuscript is checked with Turnitin. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 20% or AI detection above 30% are returned to the authors or declined, in line with the Plagiarism Policy and Generative AI Policy. Authorship, ethics approval, and the required declarations are also checked.
3Anonymization
The editor ensures that author names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and other identifying information are removed from the review version of the manuscript.
4Reviewer Assignment
The handling editor invites at least two reviewers who meet the qualifications below and have no conflict of interest. Reviewers respond to the invitation within 7 days.
5Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript using the AISM review form within 21 days and submit a recommendation with substantive, constructive comments through the online system.
6Editorial Recommendation
The handling editor assesses the reviewer reports. If the reports conflict significantly, an additional reviewer may be invited before a recommendation is made.
7Editorial Decision
The Editor in Chief makes the decision based on the reviewer reports, the editor's recommendation, and the journal's policies. The decision and all reviewer comments are sent to the authors through the online system.
8Revision
Authors revise the manuscript and submit a response letter explaining how each comment has been addressed, with changes highlighted. Revisions are due within 14 days for minor revisions and 30 days for major revisions. Major revisions are returned to the same reviewers for a second round. A manuscript normally goes through no more than two review rounds.
9Acceptance and Production
Accepted manuscripts are copyedited, proofread by the authors, assigned a DOI, and published in the next available issue.

Possible Decisions

Accept The manuscript is accepted without further changes.
Minor revision Small changes are needed; the revised manuscript is checked by the editor and, if needed, by the reviewers.
Major revision Substantial changes are needed; the revised manuscript is reviewed again.
Resubmit for review The manuscript has potential but needs fundamental changes and must be submitted as a new manuscript.
Decline The manuscript is not suitable for publication in AISM.

A Letter of Acceptance is issued only after the decision to accept. Acceptance cannot be guaranteed or accelerated by payment.

Review Criteria

Reviewers assess the manuscript on:

  • relevance to the focus and scope of AISM;
  • originality and novelty, supported by a state-of-the-art review and a clear research gap;
  • soundness of the research design, data, and methods;
  • depth of analysis and discussion, including comparison with previous studies;
  • whether the conclusions answer the research objectives and are supported by the results;
  • quality, currency, and relevance of the references;
  • clarity of the title, abstract, structure, figures, tables, and language; and
  • compliance with research and publication ethics.

Reviewer Qualifications

  • Expertise in the topic, method, or field of the manuscript;
  • A publication record in national accredited or international journals within the last three years;
  • Affiliation with an institution different from that of the authors, and no other conflict of interest;
  • Reviewers are separate from the editorial team and are listed on the Reviewers page.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

  • Substantive comments: reviewers focus on the scientific content, not only on grammar or layout, and give constructive suggestions for improvement.
  • Confidentiality: manuscripts and review materials are confidential and may not be shared or used for the reviewer's own benefit.
  • No use of artificial intelligence: reviewers may not use AI tools to analyse, evaluate, or write review comments, and may not upload a manuscript or any part of it to an AI application.
  • Conflict of interest: reviewers decline the invitation if they have a competing, collaborative, financial, or personal relationship with the authors or the work.
  • Timeliness: reviewers who cannot meet the deadline inform the editor promptly.
  • Record of review: every review is submitted through the online system, so that the evidence of review for each published article is kept in the journal's records.

Manuscripts by Editorial Team Members

Manuscripts submitted by a member of the editorial team are handled by another editor, follow the same double-blind review, and are decided without any involvement of the author. Each editorial team member may publish at most one article per year in AISM.

Appeals

Authors who believe a decision was based on a factual error or a misunderstanding may appeal once by writing to the Editor in Chief within 30 days of the decision, explaining the reasons. The appeal is assessed by an editor who was not involved in the original decision, and the decision on the appeal is final.

Related policies: Publication Ethics, Conflict of Interest, Generative AI Policy, and Plagiarism Policy.