Journal of Applied Robotics and Artificial Intelligence
For Reviewers
What a useful review of a robotics or artificial-intelligence manuscript contains, and the conditions under which the journal asks for one.
- Confidential
- Evidence-based
- Declare interests
The model
How review is organized
Single-blind by default; double-blind review is available on request.
Manuscripts that proceed to external peer review are normally evaluated by at least two independent subject-matter experts.
Editorial decisions are based on scope, scientific quality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, reporting quality, and relevance to the journal.
Decisions remain independent of fees, services, memberships, and editorial or reviewer roles.
A review is advice to the editor. It carries most weight when it says what the manuscript claims, whether the evidence supports that claim, and what would settle any doubt.
Assessing
Reading the manuscript
Start from the claim
Establish what the authors assert before judging how they argue it. Naming the claim first keeps the review on the work in front of you.
Match the evidence to the claim
Hardware experiments, simulation studies, evaluation on real data, and analytical results are each legitimate, and each supports a different kind of statement.
Ask of a manuscript the evidence its own claim requires. A theoretical, methods, modeling, review or engineering contribution is assessed against its own argument; clinical validation, a physical platform or a deployment result belongs where the manuscript claims one.
Reproducibility
Consider whether another group could repeat the work from what is written: the setup, the parameters, the data, the baselines and how they were chosen. Where code or data is needed to judge the result, say so.
Write it so it can be used
Separate what must change from what would improve the manuscript. Point to specific sections. A short, concrete review is more useful than a long general one.
Criticize the work, not the authors.
Conduct
Conditions of reviewing
Confidentiality
A manuscript sent for review is confidential and unpublished. Do not share it, discuss it outside the review, or use its content.
After submitting the review, reviewers should securely delete downloaded manuscript files and must not retain or use unpublished material.
Conflicts of interest
Decline where you have a competing interest, a recent collaboration or any other relationship that would make an independent judgment difficult. Tell the editor promptly so the manuscript can be reassigned.
Anonymity
For double-blind manuscripts, reviewers must not attempt to identify the authors.
Use of AI tools
Reviewers must obtain journal permission before using AI to assist with a review. Any permitted use must be disclosed, and confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded where confidentiality cannot be assured.
Integrity concerns
Where you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation or undisclosed conflicts, report it to the editor with the evidence rather than raising it with the authors.
Equal editorial assessment
A reviewer’s own submissions undergo the journal’s standard independent editorial assessment and peer-review process.
Next
Where to go from here
- Editorial PoliciesEthics, corrections, conflicts of interest and research integrity.
- For EditorsWhat handling a manuscript requires.
- Instructions for AuthorsHow to prepare and format a manuscript.
- Aims & ScopeThe subject areas a manuscript must fall within.
- Editorial BoardThe editors responsible for the journal’s decisions.
- Submit PaperThe routes by which a manuscript reaches the journal.
Researchers willing to review for the journal are welcome to write to [email protected] with their areas of expertise.