The peer-review process is conducted in accordance with the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

All manuscripts submitted to Decision Intelligence and Complex Computing (DICC) are initially assessed by the Editorial Office to determine whether they have been properly prepared and comply with the journal’s ethical policies and submission requirements. Manuscripts that do not comply with the journal’s ethical policies may be rejected before peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal’s technical or formatting requirements may be returned to the authors for revision and resubmission.

Following these initial checks, the Editor-in-Chief, Guest Editor, or an appropriate Editorial Board member in cases involving a conflict of interest will determine whether the manuscript falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic standards of scientific quality required for peer review. No judgment regarding the potential impact of the work will be made at this stage. Decisions to reject a manuscript at this stage will be subject to verification by the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial Board members may submit scientific articles to the journal. Such submissions must be handled in a manner that preserves the independence, transparency, rigor, and impartiality of the peer-review process. The submitting Editorial Board member must not participate in the editorial handling, reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision-making process for their manuscript. Particular care will be taken in selecting an independent handling editor and reviewers and in maintaining the confidentiality required by the journal’s double-blind peer-review process. Where appropriate, the published article may include a statement describing the measures taken to ensure the independence and transparency of the editorial and peer-review process.

The journal uses appropriate plagiarism-detection software to screen submitted manuscripts for potential plagiarism and inappropriate textual overlap.

Once a manuscript has passed the initial editorial checks, it will be assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. Decision Intelligence and Complex Computing (DICC) applies a double-blind peer-review process: the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors, and the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers.

All manuscripts considered for publication must receive at least two independent peer-review reports before a final decision on acceptance is made.

Peer-review reports and related correspondence are treated as confidential. Reviewer comments will not be disclosed beyond the editorial and review process except where disclosure is required or expressly authorized. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of a manuscript.

For regular submissions, the editorial team will invite appropriately qualified experts to review manuscripts. Reviewers may include members of the Editorial Board where appropriate, provided that no conflict of interest exists. For manuscripts submitted to a special issue, the Guest Editor may advise on the selection of suitable reviewers, subject to the journal’s editorial and ethical requirements.

Potential reviewers suggested by the authors may be considered; however, the journal is under no obligation to invite them. Suggested reviewers should be independent of the authors, should not have recent collaborative relationships with any of the authors, and should not have institutional or other relationships that could reasonably be perceived as creating a conflict of interest.

Reviewers must not recommend citations to their own work, the work of close colleagues, other authors, or articles published in the journal unless those citations are genuinely relevant and necessary to improve the scholarly quality of the manuscript. Citation recommendations must not be made for the purpose of increasing citation counts or benefiting particular authors, journals, or organizations.

Further guidance on inappropriate citation requests is available from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Reviewers must not use generative AI or AI-assisted tools, such as ChatGPT, to review submitted manuscripts or generate peer-review reports. Reviewers remain solely responsible for the content of their reports, and the use of external AI systems for confidential manuscript content may constitute a breach of peer-review confidentiality.

Reviewers should maintain a professional and impartial tone and provide clear, constructive criticism intended to help authors improve their work. Derogatory, hostile, or personally directed comments will not be tolerated. Reviewers must keep the manuscript and its contents, including the abstract, data, results, and other materials, confidential. If a review report does not meet the journal’s expected quality standards, the reviewer may be asked to revise the report, or the report may be disregarded by the Editor.

Research articles, review articles, and communications considered for publication in Decision Intelligence and Complex Computing (DICC) undergo a double-blind peer-review process and must receive at least two independent peer-review reports before a final decision on acceptance is made. Following peer review, the Editor will communicate one of the following decisions:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication in principle, subject to satisfactory revision in response to the reviewers’ and Editor’s comments. Authors are normally given seven days to submit minor revisions.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revision before a final decision can be made. Authors must provide a detailed point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and clearly explain any recommendations they have not followed. Normally, one round of major revision is permitted. Authors are generally requested to submit the revised manuscript within fifteen days. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by additional reviewers where necessary.
• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: The manuscript is not suitable for acceptance in its current form, but the identified issues may be addressed through substantial additional research, analysis, methodological development, or other significant improvements. Authors may be invited to prepare a substantially revised manuscript for consideration as a new submission.
• Reject: The manuscript has substantial deficiencies, does not meet the journal’s standards for scientific contribution, methodological rigor, relevance, or quality, or is otherwise unsuitable for publication. No invitation for resubmission is provided.

Authors should respond to all reviewer comments in a clear point-by-point manner. Where authors disagree with a reviewer’s recommendation, they should provide a reasoned and evidence-based explanation.

Authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the Editorial Office of Decision Intelligence and Complex Computing (DICC). The appeal must provide a detailed justification and, where applicable, point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Editor’s comments.

The Editor-in-Chief may refer the manuscript, the appeal, the previous reviews, and other relevant editorial information to an appropriate member of the Editorial Board for an independent advisory assessment. If no suitable Editorial Board member is available, an appropriately qualified external expert may be consulted. The individual assessing the appeal may recommend that the original decision be upheld, that additional peer review be conducted, or that the manuscript receive further editorial consideration.

For manuscripts submitted to a special issue, the Editor-in-Chief will oversee the appeal process independently of the Guest Editor and may uphold the original decision, request further peer review, or recommend further editorial consideration.

The decision reached following completion of the appeal process is final.