Guidelines for the reviewer

The following are guidelines offered as an aid in reviewing manuscripts for the Journal.
Please note that the manuscript that you have been asked to review is to be considered as a privileged communication, a
confidential document not to be shown, or used, or described to anyone else except to solicit assistance in reaching an
editorial decision.
In your comments, which are passed on to the author(s), please avoid sarcasm and phrasing that would antagonize the author(s) or reveal your identity. If it is necessary to use harsh words, please confine them to the confidential comments to the
editors. Please make your recommendations as to the acceptability of the paper for publication only among the
confidential comments. Your judgment may disagree with that of the other referees and the final decision must be made by the

The Journal has 4 decision categories to select from:
1. Accept with No Changes -- The manuscript is publishable in its current form.
2. Minor Revisions -- Prior to publication, some minor details of organization, grammar, examples, etc. need to be cleaned up. In general, this should only require a quick re-review by the editors.
3. Major Revisions -- Prior to publication, some major work is required on organization, grammar, examples, logic, etc. If this manuscript is revised, it will be sent out for re-review, typically to the original reviewers.
4. Reject -- There is no merit whatsoever in publishing this paper in CI. This could be because the paper is not within CI's
scope or due to technical/stylistic defects.

Should you have any questions or concerns, the editorial office stands ready to assist you. We also welcome your comments on any aspect of the reviewing process.

For the Author
Is this paper technically sound?
Is this paper significantly different from previous papers in the field?
Is the material suitable for publication in CI? If not, suggest an appropriate journal or forum.
Are the arguments and the data clearly and precisely presented?
Are the experimental methods, legends to the figures and footnotes to the tables presented in a manner clear enough to
allow another investigator to repeat the work?
Is the discussion relevant?
Do the conclusions drawn follow from the material presented?
Are the references or bibliography adequate?
Are the title, keywords, and abstract adequate?
How would you rate the overall organization of this paper?
Is there a way to condense the manuscript? If so, be specific.
Is the English satisfactory?
How readable is this paper for the general Artificial Intelligence reader?
Comments on matters of form are often very useful. It would also be helpful if the use of unnecessary or nonstandard
abbreviations and terms were pointed out.

For the Editors
- Accepted with No Changes
- Minor Revisions
- Major Revisions
- Rejected
If the Paper is Rejected, the Author Should:
-Consider it Not Publishable
-Submit to Another Publication
Are you willing to re-review the paper if it is revised?
If 'no', is there anyone you can suggest as a reviewer?
Any other comments you would like to tell the editors, in confidence?

Thank you very much for supporting Computational Intelligence.