Peer Review Process
JINAV: Journal of Information and Visualization operates a single-blind peer-review system, where the reviewers are aware of the names and affiliations of the authors, but the reviewer reports provided to authors are anonymous.
The benefit of single-blind peer review is that it is the traditional model of peer review that many reviewers are comfortable with, and it facilitates a dispassionate critique of a manuscript.
Submissions must represent the original and independent work of the authors. Each new submission is assessed by one or more editors to determine whether it falls within the general remit of JINAV. We will reject a manuscript without review if it contains insufficient applied science content; is mainly concerned with developing and advancing methodology and not primarily with the application of those methods; there are substantive issues with the design, methodology, or data quality; it exceeds our word limit or is incorrectly formatted; it is poorly presented and unclear.
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment are assigned to a subject expert in our team of Editors to oversee the review process. All papers are subject to peer review and authors can expect a decision, or an explanation for the delay, within a month of receipt. If a revision is invited, the corresponding author should submit the revised manuscript within 2 weeks. The final decision is taken by the editor based on the information gained through the peer-review process. Reviewers are asked to declare any conflicts of interest.
Types of decisions: Decline, Resubmit, Revision, Accept
Following peer review, the paper is judged not to be acceptable for publication in JINAV and resubmission is not possible.
The submitted version of the paper is not acceptable and requires major revision but there is clear potential in the work and JINAV is prepared to consider a new version. Authors are offered the opportunity to resubmit their paper as a new submission. Concerns will remain regarding the suitability of the paper for publication until the editors are convinced by the authors that their paper fits the scope and standards of ASCI. The resubmitted manuscript will be returned to the editor if at all possible.
The paper requires changes before a final decision can be made. Authors are asked to modify their manuscript in light of comments received from referees and editors and to submit a new version for consideration within 2 weeks of receiving the decision letter. A point-by-point explanation of how comments have been addressed must be supplied with the revised version of the paper. Revisions may undergo further peer review and papers may undergo more than one round of revision. If the authors do not revise their papers to the satisfaction of the editors, the paper can still be declined from publication in JINAV.
The paper is acceptable for publication, subject to conditions that need to be addressed in producing a final version of the manuscript. These may include sub-editing changes and the minor amendments to ensure the paper fully matches our criteria. After final checking in the editorial office, acceptance is confirmed and the paper is forwarded to the publishers for publication.