Peer Review Process

Journal of Physics Process uses an AI-assisted, editor-led review model. Every manuscript is assessed by a panel of specialized AI reviewers whose reports are advisory only; a human Editor-in-Chief evaluates those reports alongside the manuscript and makes the final, binding decision.

Editorial assessment

Every manuscript is first read by an editor, who checks that it falls within the journal's scope and meets basic standards. Only then is it sent to the reviewer panel — review never starts automatically.

The AI reviewer panel

Once an editor sends a manuscript out, two independent AI reviewers evaluate it, each with a distinct focus:

• Methodology & Rigor — is the study design sound, is the contribution novel and significant, and do the data and analysis support the claims?
• Format & Language — clarity, structure, and presentation.

Each reviewer produces a structured report with criterion scores, a recommendation, and an enumerated list of concrete required changes. Authors receive that actionable list; the full reports are synthesized into a single advisory summary for the editor.

The editorial decision

The Editor-in-Chief reads the manuscript and the reviewer reports, curates the comments shared with the author, and records one of the following decisions:

• Accept — the manuscript proceeds to publication.
• Minor revision — small changes required before acceptance.
• Major revision — substantial changes required; the revised version is reviewed again.
• Reject — the manuscript is not suitable for the journal.

Authors are notified by email and can follow the status of their submission at every stage from their dashboard.

Revisions

When revisions are requested, authors upload a revised version, which is re-assessed by the AI panel and returned to the Editor-in-Chief for a new decision. This continues until the manuscript is accepted or rejected.

Transparency & limitations

We are explicit that reviewer reports are generated by AI. AI reviewers can accelerate and standardize assessment, but they can also err; for that reason their output is never decisive on its own. Editorial judgment — and accountability — rests with a human editor. We continually refine the reviewer models and welcome feedback via our contact page.