Reviewers are essential to the quality of PatternIQ Mining (PIQM). The journal asks reviewers to follow these guidelines, which are based on the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
Before accepting an invitation
- Expertise. Accept only if the manuscript is within your area of expertise.
- Conflicts of interest. Decline, and tell the editor, if you have a competing interest: a recent collaboration with the authors, the same institution, or a financial, personal or competitive relationship. See the Conflict of Interest Policy.
- Time. Accept only if you can return your report by the agreed date, normally within two to three weeks. Tell the editor promptly if you need more time.
Confidentiality
- Treat the manuscript and all related material as confidential. Do not share it or discuss it with anyone without the editor's permission.
- Do not use information from the manuscript for your own or anyone else's advantage.
- Do not contact the authors directly. Review at PIQM is double-blind.
- Do not upload the manuscript, or any part of it, to generative AI tools or other external services. See the policy on the Use of AI and AI-Assisted Tools.
What to assess
- Originality and significance of the work
- Methodological rigour and suitability of the experimental design
- Quality of the data and validity of the results
- Reproducibility: are the methods, data and code described in enough detail?
- Adequacy of the analysis and quality of the discussion
- Relevance and completeness of the references
- Clarity of the writing, figures and tables
- Ethical compliance, including approvals, consent and declared conflicts of interest
Writing the report
- Be objective, specific and constructive. Support your statements with evidence or references.
- Criticise the work, not the authors. Personal or dismissive remarks are not acceptable.
- Separate major concerns from minor points, and number your comments so that the authors can respond to each one.
- Do not ask authors to cite your own work unless it is clearly necessary for scientific reasons.
- End with a clear recommendation: accept, minor revision, major revision or reject.
Integrity concerns
Tell the editor, in confidence, if you suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data or images, undisclosed conflicts of interest or any other ethical problem. Do not investigate the matter yourself.
The decision
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The decision is made by the handling editor and confirmed by the Editor-in-Chief, as described in the Peer Review Policy.