Review Model

IJNGC employs a rigorous single-blind peer review process. Under this model, the identities of reviewers are kept strictly confidential from authors throughout the entire review cycle. Reviewers, however, are made aware of the authors' identities and affiliations. This model is widely adopted in computer science and engineering publishing and enables reviewers to more effectively assess potential conflicts of interest and contextualize the authors' prior contributions to the field.

Reviewer anonymity is maintained at all stages, including after a final publication decision. The editorial office will not disclose reviewer identities under any circumstances, including in response to author appeals or freedom of information requests.

Editorial Screening

Upon submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated Associate Editor. Manuscripts are checked for:

• Alignment with the journal's stated scope and relevance to next-generation computing
• Compliance with submission and formatting requirements as specified in the Author Guidelines
• Completeness of all required documents, declarations, and signed copyright agreement
• Basic English language standard sufficient for fair review
• Absence of obvious ethical violations, including plagiarism pre-check and duplicate submission screening

Manuscripts that do not pass editorial screening will be returned to authors with a brief explanation. Authors will normally receive a screening decision within 7–10 business days of submission. Resubmission of a screened-out manuscript with the requested corrections is permitted.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts that pass editorial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers by the handling editor. Under the single-blind model, reviewers are provided with the full manuscript including author names and affiliations, which assists them in evaluating conflicts of interest before accepting the review invitation. Reviewers are selected on the basis of:

• Domain expertise closely aligned with the manuscript's subject area
• Absence of conflicts of interest (institutional, personal, or financial) with any named author
• Active research record in the relevant field, normally within the past five years
• No prior association with the work being reviewed (e.g., as thesis supervisor, current collaborator, or institutional colleague)

Authors may suggest up to three preferred reviewers and up to two reviewers they wish to be excluded, with written justification provided in the cover letter. The handling editor is not obligated to follow these suggestions and will exercise independent judgment in all reviewer assignments.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts against the following criteria:

1. Originality and novelty of the research contribution
2. Scientific rigor and validity of methodology
3. Significance and relevance to the field
4. Quality and reproducibility of results
5. Clarity, organization, and quality of writing
6. Adequacy of the literature review and references
7. Ethical compliance (where applicable)

Review Timeline

IJNGC aims to complete the review process within the following target timescales:

Stage	Target Timeframe
Initial editorial screening	7–14 business days from submission
Reviewer assignment	Within 7 days of passing screening
First review decision	6–8 weeks from submission
Revised manuscript review	4–6 weeks from re-submission
Final editorial decision	Within 2 weeks of completed review
Total time to first decision	Target: 10–14 weeks maximum

Possible Decisions

Following peer review, the Editor-in-Chief will communicate one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted for publication with no or only minor copyediting changes.
• Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited, specific revisions. A revised version will normally be reviewed by the handling editor only.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes are required. The revised manuscript will be returned to the original reviewers.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's standards for publication. Authors will receive reviewer comments to assist with potential submission elsewhere.

Appeals

Authors who believe a rejection decision was made in error may appeal in writing to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of receiving the decision. Appeals must clearly state the grounds for the

appeal and respond point-by-point to the reviewer comments. Appeals based solely on disagreement with the decision, without new substantive arguments, will not be considered. The Editor-in-Chief's decision on appeals is final.

Reviewer Confidentiality and Conduct

All submitted manuscripts are treated as strictly confidential documents. Although reviewers are aware of author identities under the single-blind model, they must not share, cite, discuss, or use the contents of manuscripts under review without explicit written permission from the authors. Reviewers must not contact authors directly at any point during the review process; all communication must be conducted through the editorial office.

Reviewers who suspect ethical violations, including plagiarism, duplicate submission, data fabrication, or undisclosed conflicts of interest, must report these concerns to the Editor-in-Chief promptly, rather than including such matters in their review report.

Reviewers are expected to decline a review invitation if they have a conflict of interest with any named author, including but not limited to current or recent collaboration (within three years), shared institutional affiliation, personal relationships, or a financial interest in the outcome of the review.