Review Guidelines

Review Guidelines

Artificial Intelligence in Molecular Physics (AIMP) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing, research integrity, and ethical peer review. The journal follows internationally recognized ethical publishing principles and best practice guidelines recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Peer review plays a critical role in ensuring the scientific quality, reliability, and integrity of published research in artificial intelligence, molecular physics, computational modeling, quantum systems, molecular simulations, and related interdisciplinary scientific fields. Reviewers contribute by providing independent, objective, and constructive evaluations of submitted manuscripts.

Role of Reviewers

Peer review is an essential component of scholarly publishing and helps ensure that manuscripts published in AIMP meet recognized scientific and ethical standards.

Reviewers assist the editorial board in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality, clarity, scientific accuracy, and contribution of their manuscripts. Manuscripts should be evaluated solely on scientific merit, originality, methodological rigor, computational validity, and relevance to the journal scope, without consideration of authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, or personal background.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to AIMP must be treated as strictly confidential documents.

Reviewers should not share, discuss, distribute, or disclose any part of a manuscript or associated data with third parties without prior authorization from the editorial office. Information obtained during the peer-review process must not be used for personal research, professional benefit, or competitive advantage before publication.

Objectivity and Constructive Feedback

Reviews should be conducted objectively, professionally, and respectfully.

Reviewers are encouraged to provide clear, constructive, and evidence-based comments that help authors improve scientific clarity, methodological quality, computational approaches, interpretation of results, theoretical frameworks, and overall presentation of the manuscript.

Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate and should be avoided.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers should decline invitations to review manuscripts where conflicts of interest may compromise impartiality.

Conflicts of interest may arise from collaborative, competitive, institutional, financial, professional, or personal relationships with authors or affiliated organizations. Any potential conflict should be disclosed immediately to the editorial office.

Ethical Vigilance

Reviewers are expected to report any potential ethical concerns identified during the review process, including but not limited to:

• Plagiarism or substantial similarity with previously published work
• Data fabrication, falsification, or manipulation
• Misuse of artificial intelligence tools without appropriate disclosure
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Duplicate submission or redundant publication
• Ethical concerns related to experimental, computational, or research practices

Such concerns should be communicated confidentially to the editorial office rather than directly to authors.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

• Originality and contribution to artificial intelligence and molecular physics
• Relevance to the journal aims and scope
• Scientific validity and methodological rigor
• Clarity, organization, and structure of the manuscript
• Accuracy and interpretation of theoretical, computational, or experimental findings
• Quality and relevance of references and literature review
• Compliance with ethical research and publication standards

Review Recommendations

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

All recommendations should be supported by detailed and constructive reviewer comments.

Timeliness and Professional Conduct

Reviewers are expected to complete evaluations within the timeframe specified by the editorial office.

If reviewers are unable to complete the review within the expected period, they should inform the editorial office promptly so that alternative arrangements can be made.

Review invitations should only be accepted when reviewers possess expertise in artificial intelligence, molecular physics, computational science, or related interdisciplinary areas and can provide fair and objective evaluations.

Anonymity and Review Model

AIMP follows a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the review process.

Reviewers should respect the anonymity of the review system and avoid any actions that may compromise the confidentiality or integrity of the review process.

Commitment to Ethical Reviewing

By accepting a review assignment, reviewers confirm their commitment to:

• Maintain strict confidentiality of submitted manuscripts
• Provide fair, objective, and constructive feedback
• Disclose any potential conflicts of interest
• Support ethical publishing and responsible research practices
• Contribute to the advancement of high-quality research in artificial intelligence and molecular physics