1) Purpose and alignment

Description. Peer review at JIWE ensures rigor, fairness, and transparency. We use a double-blind process with at least two expert reviewers and publish clear procedures.
Detailed policy. We implement the Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (v4, 2022) and the Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers from COPE. Editors make independent decisions based on reviewers’ critical evaluations and journal standards.
Technicalities. We train editors and reviewers on COPE guidance, document decisions, and audit turnaround times and outcomes for each issue.

2) Workflow overview

Description. Manuscripts progress through screening, external review, decision, and revision.
Detailed policy.

• Initial screening. A handling editor checks scope, formatting, and ethics, including similarity and AI-use screening, before double-blind review.

• External double-blind review. At least two independent reviewers evaluate novelty, methods, clarity, and relevance to informatics and web engineering.

• Editorial decision. Possible outcomes: accept, minor revision, major revision, reject. Editors weigh reviewers’ comments and journal criteria, and they make the final decision.

• Revisions. Authors submit a point-by-point response; revised manuscripts may undergo further review.

• Scheduling. Accepted articles are placed considering acceptance date, thematic balance, and geographic distribution of authors, under the Editor-in-Chief’s oversight.
  Technicalities. Typical full review takes 6–12 weeks, depending on availability and complexity; we communicate promptly if delays occur.

3) Reviewer selection, independence, and conflicts

Description. We select qualified, independent reviewers and manage conflicts transparently.
Detailed policy. Editors invite reviewers for subject expertise and methodological fit and avoid close collaborators, recent coauthors, or institutional conflicts. All invitees must disclose competing interests before accepting or in the report.
Technicalities. Editors may add a third review if opinions diverge; we reassign editors when conflicts arise and follow COPE processes for disputed cases.

4) Reviewer conduct, confidentiality, and attribution

Description. Reviewers follow COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Detailed policy. Reviewers keep manuscripts confidential, assess work fairly and constructively, and refrain from using information for personal advantage. They cite relevant prior work and explain their judgments clearly.
Technicalities. We forbid uploading any confidential content to public AI tools and prohibit AI-generated reviews; limited, local language assistance is allowed with full reviewer responsibility. (See COPE flowcharts for handling concerns.)

5) Evaluation criteria

Description. Reports address the manuscript’s contribution and integrity.
Detailed policy. Reviewers comment on: (a) originality and significance; (b) soundness of methods and analysis; (c) clarity, organization, and reproducibility; (d) relevance to informatics and web engineering; and (e) ethical compliance and data availability. These criteria reflect JIWE’s posted standards.
Technicalities. Structured forms prompt specific, actionable feedback and citation recommendations without coercion.

6) Integrity checks and manipulation safeguards

Description. We protect the process against manipulation, malpractice, and undisclosed AI use.
Detailed policy. We verify reviewer identities, watch for abnormal patterns (e.g., reviewer suggestions with non-institutional emails, suspicious citation behavior), and follow COPE flowcharts when manipulation is suspected during or after review.
Technicalities. Tools include similarity screening, image-integrity checks, and audit trails of invitations and decisions. Sanctions may include rejection, reviewer removal, institutional notification, or retraction post-publication per COPE guidance.

7) Decisions, transparency, and fairness

Description. Editors make reasoned decisions informed by evidence and journal policy.
Detailed policy. Editors do not count “votes”; they critically evaluate arguments in reviews against journal standards and the paper’s improvement through revision. Decision letters summarize key reasons and required actions. The Editor-in-Chief confirms final acceptance.
Technicalities. We retain all correspondence and versions; metadata updates accompany post-decision actions (acceptance, withdrawal, or rejection).

8) Author revisions and dialogue

Description. We encourage constructive iteration to improve scholarship.
Detailed policy. Authors submit a detailed response matrix mapping each reviewer's point to manuscript changes or rebuttals with evidence.
Technicalities. We set reasonable deadlines, allow extensions with justification, and may consult original or new reviewers for major changes.

9) Appeals and complaints

Description. Authors may appeal decisions or raise concerns about process or conduct.
Detailed policy. Appeals must provide specific methodological or ethical grounds. A senior editor not involved in the original decision (or an external advisor when needed) reviews the case using COPE recommendations.
Technicalities. We acknowledge appeals promptly and provide a written, reasoned outcome.

10) Publication scheduling and issue planning

Description. Accepted papers are queued transparently.
Detailed policy. The Editor-in-Chief schedules accepted papers considering the acceptance date, thematic balance, and author geographic distribution, consistent with JIWE’s current statement.
Technicalities. We communicate the expected issue placement to the corresponding authors once the article is production-ready.

11) Public transparency and continuous improvement

Description. The policy is public, auditable, and periodically reviewed.
Detailed policy. We publish and maintain this page to satisfy Scopus’ transparency criteria and the joint COPE–DOAJ–OASPA–WAME Principles.
Technicalities. We review policy wording annually and when COPE or Scopus guidance changes; we capture metrics (turnaround, acceptance rates, corrections) for internal quality improvement.