Peer Review Process

Peer-Review Process
Nexus: Journal of Hardware and Architecture follows a rigorous and transparent review process to ensure the quality and credibility of the published articles. The journal adopts a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review type, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are kept anonymous during the review process.

Submission and Initial Evaluation
All manuscripts submitted to Nexus: Journal of Hardware and Architecture undergo an initial evaluation by the editorial team to assess their suitability and compliance with the journal's scope and guidelines. Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are assigned a unique identification number for further processing. During this stage, the Editor-in-Chief will assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal's scope and submission requirements. If the manuscript fails to meet these criteria, it will be rejected without further review.

Peer Review
Each eligible manuscript is then sent for review to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. Reviewers are carefully selected based on their expertise, experience, and prior contributions to the field. Manuscripts are assessed for their academic quality, originality, and relevance. In cases where conflicting opinions arise between reviewers, additional reviewers may be invited to provide a comprehensive evaluation.

Double-Blind Review
Nexus: Journal of Hardware and Architecture ensures a double-blind (double-anonymous) peer-review process, where the identities of both the authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This helps maintain objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process, minimizing potential biases.

Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to assess the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific quality, originality, relevance to the journal's scope, clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical guidelines. Constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement are encouraged to assist the authors in enhancing the quality of their work.

First Decision
A decision on a peer-reviewed manuscript will only be made upon receiving at least two review reports. Manuscripts can be accepted, rejected, or sent back to the authors for minor or major revisions. In cases where significant revisions are required, authors may be advised to resubmit the manuscript for a second review process. The final decision to accept or reject the manuscript lies with the Editor-in-Chief, following the handling editor’s recommendations and approval by the editorial board.

Revision Stage
Manuscripts requiring revisions will be returned to the submitting authors with detailed feedback and suggestions. Authors will have up to three weeks to submit the revised manuscript. The handling editor will review the revisions to ensure all reviewer comments have been adequately addressed. If the changes are deemed insufficient, the manuscript may be returned to the authors for additional revisions.

Final Decision
At this stage, the revised manuscript will either be accepted or rejected. The decision is based on whether the manuscript has been adequately improved to meet the journal's standards. If the required changes are not sufficiently implemented, the manuscript will be rejected.

Review Duration
Nexus: Journal of Hardware and Architecture strives to provide a timely and efficient peer review process. Reviewers are typically given a specific timeframe to complete their evaluations. Authors will be informed of the review process's estimated duration during the initial submission or after any significant revisions.

Confidentiality
The journal maintains strict confidentiality throughout the peer review process. Reviewers are required to treat the manuscripts and their contents as confidential documents and should not disclose any information to unauthorized individuals.

Review Process Improvement
Nexus: Journal of Hardware and Architecture is committed to continuously improving its review process. Feedback from authors and reviewers is invaluable in enhancing the efficiency, fairness, and quality of the process. Suggestions are always welcomed and taken into consideration.

Contact
For any inquiries or questions related to the review process, please contact the editorial team at journal@idscipub.com.