Guide for reviewers

Call for Reviewers: Invitation to Join the Peer-Review Process for Generative Artificial Intelligence Research:

Generative Artificial Intelligence Research is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity. As a peer-reviewed journal, we rely on the expertise of our reviewers to ensure that only the most impactful and scientifically sound research is published. This guide outlines the expectations and responsibilities for reviewers to facilitate a fair, thorough, and constructive review process.

1. Overview of the Review Process

Submissions to Generative Artificial Intelligence Research undergo a double-blind peer review process, ensuring impartiality by concealing both the identities of the authors and the reviewers. Reviewers are tasked with evaluating the scientific quality, originality, significance, and relevance of the manuscript, providing valuable feedback that will help both the authors and the editorial team determine whether the submission meets the journal's standards for publication.

2. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following key dimensions:

• Novelty and Originality: Does the manuscript present novel ideas, approaches, or findings that contribute meaningfully to the field of generative AI? Is the research advancing current understanding or proposing new methodologies or applications?

• Technical Soundness: Are the research methods, models, and algorithms sound and well-defined? Are the experiments conducted appropriately, and are the results statistically valid and reproducible?

• Clarity and Organization: Is the manuscript clearly written and logically organized? Are the research objectives, methods, results, and conclusions well-articulated? Is the manuscript accessible to a broad scientific audience, while maintaining technical rigor?

• Relevance to the Field: Does the manuscript address important issues, challenges, or advancements within the scope of generative AI? Is the paper relevant to the journal’s focus on generative models, their applications, and ethical considerations?

• Ethical Considerations: Does the research adhere to ethical guidelines in the development and application of AI technologies? Are there any potential concerns regarding fairness, bias, transparency, or societal impact?

• References and Literature Review: Is the manuscript well-supported by relevant literature? Are the citations up to date, and do they appropriately acknowledge the work of others in the field?

3. Providing Constructive Feedback

Reviewers are encouraged to provide feedback that is clear, respectful, and actionable. Constructive comments should aim to help the authors improve their work, enhancing both the quality of the manuscript and its contribution to the field. Some guidelines for providing effective feedback include:

• Be Specific: When suggesting improvements, provide clear, detailed suggestions. Instead of general comments like “the methodology needs work,” explain the issues you have identified and offer suggestions for revision.

• Maintain Objectivity: Focus on the content of the manuscript rather than the authors. Be constructive in your critique and avoid personal or subjective remarks.

• Highlight Strengths: In addition to pointing out areas for improvement, highlight the strengths of the manuscript, such as innovative ideas, well-executed methodologies, or significant contributions to the field.

• Provide Suggestions: Offer concrete suggestions for how the manuscript can be strengthened. Whether recommending additional experiments, clearer explanations, or more comprehensive citations, your input should guide the authors in revising their work.

4. Decision Making

Reviewers are asked to recommend one of the following decisions based on their assessment:

1. Accept as is: The manuscript is of high quality and is suitable for publication without revisions.
2. Minor Revisions: The manuscript is generally well-written but requires some minor revisions or clarifications before it can be accepted.
3. Major Revisions: The manuscript has significant issues that need to be addressed before it can be considered for publication.
4. Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards or falls outside the scope of the journal.

Reviewers should provide a clear justification for their recommendation, referencing specific sections of the manuscript where relevant. This feedback will be shared with the authors, along with the reviewer’s overall recommendation.

5. Confidentiality and Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscripts they review. Manuscripts should not be shared or discussed with others without prior consent from the journal’s editorial team. If a reviewer has a conflict of interest (e.g., personal or professional relationships with the authors), they should disclose it immediately to the editorial team. In such cases, the reviewer may be recused from the review process for that particular manuscript.

6. Timeliness of Reviews

Reviewers are expected to complete their reviews in a timely manner, typically within 2–4 weeks from the date of assignment. If, for any reason, a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should inform the editorial team as soon as possible. We understand that unforeseen circumstances can arise, and we appreciate timely communication to ensure the review process remains efficient.

7. Final Remarks

As a reviewer, it is important to maintain the quality and integrity of Generative Artificial Intelligence Research. Your expertise and careful evaluation help ensure that only the most rigorous and relevant research is published. We highly value your contributions and appreciate the time and effort you dedicate to the review process.

Should you have any questions or require further clarification during the review process, please do not hesitate to contact the editorial team. We are here to support you throughout the review.