Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers for the Journal of Intelligent Geotechnical Engineering and Foundations should provide an independent, constructive, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. Reviews should help the editor determine the suitability of the work for publication while providing authors with clear recommendations for improving the manuscript.

Reviewers should Consider the Following

Scope and relevance: Assess whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the Journal and makes a meaningful contribution to intelligent geotechnical engineering, foundation engineering, or a related field.

Originality and significance: Consider whether the work offers a sufficiently original contribution and whether its findings or methodology are of scholarly or practical interest.

Methodological quality: Evaluate the appropriateness and adequacy of the research design, mathematical or computational methods, experimental procedures, data analysis, and validation.

Technical accuracy: Check whether the mathematical formulations, models, algorithms, assumptions, simulations, experiments, and interpretations are adequately explained and technically sound.

Results and conclusions: Assess whether the results are presented clearly and whether the conclusions are supported by the evidence provided.

Reproducibility: Where applicable, consider whether sufficient information about datasets, parameters, computational procedures, software, experimental conditions, and analytical methods is provided to permit verification or reproduction of the work.

Presentation and references: Comment on the clarity and organization of the manuscript and whether relevant and appropriate scholarly literature has been considered.

Reviewer comments should be professional, specific, and constructive. Personal criticism or comments concerning an author’s identity, institution, nationality, gender, or other irrelevant characteristics should be avoided. Reviewers should not request unnecessary citations to their own work or to the work of particular journals.

All manuscripts and associated information received for review must be treated as confidential. Reviewers should not share, copy, discuss, or use unpublished material for their own research or professional purposes. Reviewers should disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest and should decline the assignment where their impartiality could reasonably be questioned. They should also inform the editor if they recognize the authors or have another circumstance that could compromise the double-blind review process.

Reviewers should not completely depend on use of  artificial intelligence tools to generate or substantially prepare confidential peer-review reports. Regardless of any permitted use of technological tools, the reviewer remains responsible for the confidentiality, accuracy, and content of the review.

The final recommendation should reflect the reviewer’s overall assessment of the manuscript, such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. The recommendation should be supported by the detailed comments provided to the editor and authors. The editor makes the final decision after considering the reviewer reports and other relevant editorial considerations.