Guidelines for Reviewers

Guidelines for Reviewers - Spanish (Click)
Guidelines for Reviewers - English (Click)

The Team of Reviewers at the CISAI - International Journal of Computational Innovations, Intelligent Systems and AI comprises a distinguished group of national and international experts dedicated to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and quality. Each reviewer brings extensive knowledge and expertise in fields such as artificial intelligence, computational innovations, intelligent systems, and related interdisciplinary domains. Their diverse perspectives and commitment to ethical and constructive peer review ensure that every submission is evaluated with precision, fairness, and a focus on advancing scientific progress. This global collaboration strengthens CISAI's mission to foster innovation and excellence in the rapidly evolving landscape of computational research.

The peer-review process will be conducted through the journal's digital platform and will follow a double-blind format. Therefore, authors will not know the identity of the reviewers, who will evaluate the articles without access to information about the authors. Reviewers are required to maintain the confidentiality of the assigned documents, ensuring that the information contained therein is neither disclosed nor misused.

The main ethical responsibilities of reviewers include:

  1. Acceptance according to expertise. The reviewer will only accept manuscripts that fall within their area of expertise and for which they have the necessary technical knowledge to provide a rigorous evaluation.
  2. Early declaration of conflicts of interest. From the start of the process, the reviewer must inform the editorial team if there is any personal, professional, institutional, or financial connection that may affect their judgment. Even if they merely suspect the identity of the author(s), they must notify it when such knowledge could create a potential conflict of interest.
  3. Refusal due to inability to meet deadlines. Respect for editorial timelines is essential for the smooth flow of the publication process. If the reviewer cannot submit the report within the agreed deadline, they must immediately decline the invitation. This responsible act allows the editor to reassign the manuscript promptly, avoiding delays that could affect authors and the editorial schedule.
  4. Comprehensive manuscript evaluation. The review should thoroughly address the originality of the work, its contribution to the thematic field, the coherence of the methodology used, the strength and relevance of the bibliography, as well as clarity in structure, style, and writing. The reviewer must examine both the conceptual content and technical rigor, assessing the relevance of the results and the validity of the conclusions in light of the presented evidence.
  5. Recognition of technical limitations. Intellectual honesty requires that, if during the analysis the reviewer realizes they lack the expertise to assess certain aspects of the manuscript, they must immediately inform the editor.
  6. Objectivity and constructive tone. Criticism must be specific, clear, and well-founded, avoiding vague remarks or comments that may be perceived as personal. A respectful, constructive, and professional tone must be maintained throughout the process.
  7. Clear and well-founded recommendation. The reviewer must conclude their evaluation with an explicit recommendation, such as acceptance, acceptance with revisions, major revision, or rejection. This decision must be supported by solid, constructive, and precise arguments so that both the editor and authors fully understand the reasoning behind the verdict.
  8. Strict compliance with deadlines. Failure to meet deadlines may delay publication and harm the journal’s credibility. In case of unforeseen circumstances, the reviewer must communicate in advance to allow a reorganization of the process.
  9. Confidentiality before, during, and after the process. Any manuscript received for review must be treated as unpublished material and protected under the principle of confidentiality. This obligation continues even after the editorial process has ended. The content may not be disclosed, discussed, or used without the express authorization of the editor, thereby safeguarding the authors’ intellectual rights and the journal’s integrity.
  10. No improper use of reviewed content. The reviewer may not use ideas, data, tables, images, or any other content from a manuscript under review for personal benefit or that of third parties before its official publication. Any misuse would constitute a serious ethical breach and could result in academic and legal sanctions.
  11. Individual and non-delegated review. The review assignment is personal and non-transferable. The reviewer must not involve third parties in the manuscript’s evaluation or delegate this responsibility to assistants, students, or collaborators without prior and explicit authorization from the editorial team.
  12. Detection of plagiarism and similarities. If the reviewer identifies substantial similarities between the manuscript and other works they have reviewed or are aware of, or detects any form of plagiarism, self-plagiarism, or data manipulation, they must inform the editor with verifiable evidence. This preventive measure safeguards the originality and scientific integrity of published content.
  13. No transfer of responsibilities. Under no circumstances may the reviewer assign or transfer to another person the responsibility of issuing the requested review report.
  14. Continuous updating and adherence to international standards. The reviewer must remain up-to-date in their field of expertise and be familiar with international guidelines for best practices in peer review, such as those issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), as well as CISAI’s own editorial policies.
  15. Use of AI by reviewers. Reviewers should not use generative artificial intelligence tools, including large language models, to draft, analyze, summarize, or formulate evaluations, opinions, or recommendations on manuscripts, in order to preserve the confidentiality, academic integrity, and intellectual responsibility of the peer review process.

Reviewers

Distribution of reviewers: 80% International and 20% National

Nombres y Apellidos Afiliación Institucional País
ORCID Alma Delia Cuevas Rasgado  Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México México
ORCID Raúl Alfredo Sánchez Ancajima  Universidad Nacional de Tumbes Perú
ORCID Charles Miguel Pérez Espinoza  Universidad Agraria del Ecuador Ecuador
ORCID Teobaldo Raul Basurco Chambilla Universidad Nacional del Altiplano - Puno Perú
ORCID Enrique Ferruzola Gómez  Universidad Estatal de Milagro Ecuador
ORCID Marcos Dario Aranda  Universidad Siglo 21/Universidad Nacional de Catamarca Argentina
ORCID Darwin Ebert Aguilar Chuquizuta  Universidad Nacional de Tumbes Perú
ORCID José Jaime Carriel Universidad Politécnica Salesiana - UPS Ecuador
ORCID Guido Humberto Cayo Cabrera  Universidad Nacional del Altiplano - Puno Perú
ORCID Ernesto Díaz Kovalenko  Universidad Estatal de Milagro Ecuador
ORCID Raúl Camacho Brinez  Universidad Nacional Abierta y a Distancia - UNAD Colombia
ORCID Jorge Yánez Palacios  Universidad de Guayaquil Ecuador
ORCID Carlos Sánchez Pacheco  Universidad de Oriente México
ORCID Gerardo Ortiz-Castro  Universidad Nacional de Tumbes Perú
ORCID Luis Chavarria Zamora  Instituto Tecnológico de Costa Rica Costa Rica
ORCID Vicente Becerra Sablón  Universidade São Francisco Brasil
ORCID José Abel Alarcón Salvatierra  Universidad de Guayaquil Ecuador
ORCID Laura Amavizca Valdez  Universidad Tecnológica del Sur de Sonora México
ORCID Nuvia Beltran Robayo  Universidad Agraria del Ecuador Ecuador
ORCID Jhon Barros Naranjo  Universidad Estatal de Milagro Ecuador
ORCID Luis Baquero Rey  Universidad Central Colombia
ORCID Alicia Esther Ares  Instituto de Materiales de Misiones, IMAM (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET) - Universidad Nacional de Misiones (UNaM)) Argentina
ORCID Paola Veronica Britos  Universidad Nacional de Rio Negro Argentina
ORCID Victor Saquicela Galarza  Universidad de Cuenca Ecuador
ORCID Lina Patricia Zapata Molina  Universidad Politécnica Salesiana - UPS Ecuador

Recognition and Visibility of Review Work

Starting with Volume 2, CISAI – International Journal of Computational Innovations, Intelligent Systems and AI implements a formal policy to recognize the work of its reviewers, understanding that their contribution is essential to maintaining the quality, integrity, and prestige of the journal. Reviewers who authorize it will have their name and institutional affiliation published in the annual list of academic collaborators, as public testimony of their participation in strengthening the editorial process. Reviewers who prefer to keep their identity confidential may do so by sending a request to the official email address editor@cisai.com.pe.

CISAI will issue an Official Review Certificate for each evaluation process that has been satisfactorily completed, meeting the quality standards and deadlines established by the editorial committee. This certificate will include the reviewer’s name, the title of the manuscript reviewed, the date of completion, and confirmation of compliance with the ethical and professional responsibilities established by the journal.

This accreditation mechanism not only seeks to express gratitude for the time and effort dedicated but also to provide tangible value to the reviewer’s academic and professional profile, strengthening their curriculum vitae and demonstrating their active participation in the international scientific community. Commitment and punctuality in submitting evaluations will be key factors for obtaining such recognition.

Last updated: August 9, 2025.