Peer-Review Process

The Canadian Transactions of Data Analytics and Artificial Intelligence employs a rigorous double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, integrity, and academic relevance of the research it publishes. Under this model, the identities of the authors are concealed from reviewers, and the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Although the journal takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed when authors have previously presented their work at conferences, posted a preprint, made related data or code publicly available, or cited highly identifiable previous research.

1. Manuscript Submission and Anonymization

Authors must submit two separate files:

1. Title page: This file should contain the manuscript title, the names and affiliations of all authors, ORCID identifiers where available, corresponding-author information, acknowledgements, funding information, conflict-of-interest declarations, and other identifying details.

2. Anonymized manuscript: This file must not contain author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, institutional details, or other information that could reveal the authors’ identities.

Authors should refer to their own previous work in the third person and avoid expressions such as “in our previous study.” File names, document properties, supplementary materials, data files, and tracked changes must also be checked to remove identifying information.

Manuscripts that have not been properly anonymized may be returned to the authors before editorial assessment.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary administrative and technical review. The manuscript is examined for:

• Completeness and compliance with the journal’s submission requirements;

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;

• Adequacy of anonymization;

• Originality and potential scholarly contribution;

• Basic methodological and scientific soundness;

• Compliance with research and publication ethics;

• Appropriate disclosure of funding and competing interests; and

• Possible plagiarism, duplicate publication, or excessive textual similarity.

A manuscript may be returned for technical correction, rejected without external review, or forwarded to an appropriate handling editor. Rejection at the initial screening stage may occur when a manuscript is clearly outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient originality, contains fundamental methodological problems, fails to satisfy ethical requirements, or does not meet the journal’s minimum scholarly standards.

Passing the initial screening does not guarantee that the manuscript will be sent for external review or accepted for publication.

3. Assignment to a Handling Editor

A manuscript that passes the initial screening is assigned to an editor with relevant subject expertise. The handling editor evaluates its suitability for external review and identifies qualified independent reviewers.

Editors must declare any financial, professional, institutional, personal, or collaborative conflict that could affect—or reasonably appear to affect—their impartiality. When a conflict exists, the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified editor.

4. Selection of Reviewers

Manuscripts selected for external review are normally evaluated by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected according to their subject knowledge, research experience, publication record, independence, and ability to provide a timely and constructive assessment.

The journal seeks to avoid reviewers who:

• Are affiliated with the same institution as any author;

• Have a recent or ongoing research collaboration with an author;

• Have a direct supervisory, financial, personal, or professional relationship with an author;

• Have participated in preparing the submitted work; or

• Have another interest that could compromise their objectivity.

Authors may recommend or identify non-preferred reviewers during submission. However, the editor is not required to follow these recommendations and retains full responsibility for reviewer selection.

5. Double-Blind Review

Reviewers receive the anonymized manuscript without access to the authors’ names, affiliations, contact details, or declarations containing identifying information. Authors do not receive the names or identifying details of the reviewers.

The handling editor and authorized editorial staff may have access to the identities of both authors and reviewers when necessary to administer the review, verify conflicts of interest, and protect the integrity of the process. Accordingly, the journal’s procedure is double-blind rather than triple-blind.

Reviewers must not attempt to discover the authors’ identities. If a reviewer believes that an author’s identity is apparent or recognizes the work, the reviewer must inform the editor and disclose any possible conflict before continuing the review.

6. Evaluation Criteria

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

• Originality and significance of the contribution;

• Relevance to the journal’s scope and readership;

• Accuracy and clarity of the research objectives;

• Soundness of the theoretical, experimental, or computational methodology;

• Validity and reproducibility of the analyses;

• Quality, provenance, and appropriate use of data;

• Adequacy of comparisons, experiments, and evaluation metrics;

• Correct interpretation of results;

• Transparency concerning limitations and potential sources of bias;

• Organization, clarity, and scholarly presentation;

• Appropriateness and accuracy of references;

• Compliance with ethical, privacy, security, and reporting requirements; and

• Importance of the conclusions and their support by the evidence presented.

Reviewers should provide clear, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments that assist both the editor’s decision and the authors’ revision.

7. Confidentiality and Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers

Submitted manuscripts and review reports are confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, reproduce, discuss, or use unpublished material from a manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest and decline the invitation when they cannot provide an impartial assessment. They should promptly notify the editor of suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, image or citation manipulation, duplicate publication, unethical research practices, or other serious concerns.

A reviewer must not transfer the manuscript to a colleague, student, or another person without prior editorial permission. Any approved contributor to a review must be identified to the editor.

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or related materials to public or external artificial-intelligence systems when confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured. Any authorized use of AI-assisted tools in preparing a review must comply with the journal’s AI policy and be disclosed to the editor. Reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, fairness, and originality of their reports.

8. Editorial Decision

After considering the reviewers’ reports and independently evaluating the manuscript, the handling editor may recommend one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive revision.

• Minor revision: Limited changes are required before the manuscript can be accepted.

• Major revision: Substantial changes, additional analysis, clarification, or restructuring are required.

• Reject and resubmit: The manuscript requires fundamental redevelopment and may be considered only as a new submission.

• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The editor is responsible for weighing the reports, resolving inconsistent recommendations, and making a reasoned editorial decision. When the reviewers’ assessments differ substantially, the editor may seek an additional review or make a decision based on an independent evaluation of the manuscript.

The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized editor acting on the Editor-in-Chief’s behalf. Publication fees, sponsorship, advertising, institutional relationships, or commercial considerations will not influence editorial decisions.

9. Revision and Re-Review

When revision is invited, authors must submit:

• A revised anonymized manuscript;

• A detailed point-by-point response to every reviewer and editor comment; and

• A clear indication of the changes made, using the method requested by the journal.

If the authors disagree with a recommendation, they should provide a respectful, scholarly, and evidence-based explanation. Incomplete or unsupported responses may result in further revision or rejection.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the handling editor, depending on the extent of the revisions. An invitation to revise does not guarantee acceptance. Multiple rounds of review may be required when necessary to resolve significant scholarly concerns.

10. Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by editors, editorial board members, guest editors, or individuals closely associated with the journal will be subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as all other submissions.

Such manuscripts will be handled by an independent editor who has no relevant conflict of interest. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection, access confidential review information, or influence the editorial decision.

11. Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal a decision when they believe that a significant factual, procedural, or ethical error affected the evaluation of their manuscript. An appeal must provide a clear and evidence-based explanation rather than merely expressing disagreement with the outcome.

Appeals will be reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or another qualified editor who was not directly responsible for the original decision whenever reasonably possible. The journal may obtain an additional independent assessment when necessary. The decision reached after a formal appeal will normally be considered final.

Concerns regarding reviewer conduct, confidentiality, conflicts of interest, or the fairness of the review process may be submitted through the journal’s official contact address and will be investigated in accordance with the journal’s publication-ethics policies.