Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS) Journal adheres to a rigorous and transparent reviewing process to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of the scholarly work we publish. The reviewing process is meticulously structured to maintain ethical standards, scientific rigor, and fairness to authors.

Initial Checks:

All submitted manuscripts undergo a preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Office to ensure proper preparation and adherence to the journal's ethical policies. Manuscripts not aligning with ethical guidelines will be rejected before peer review, while those requiring adjustments will be returned to authors for revision and resubmission. The Editor-in-Chief or Guest Editor assesses whether the manuscript aligns with the journal's scope and is scientifically sound. No judgment on significance or impact is made at this stage.

Reject decisions are verified by the Editor-in-Chief.

Peer-Review:

Manuscripts passing initial checks are subjected to a double-blind peer-review process, involving at least two independent experts. Peer review comments are treated confidentially and disclosed only with the reviewer's express agreement. The Editor is responsible for the final decision on acceptance or rejection.

For regular submissions, assistant editors invite experts, including Editorial Board members and Guest Editors. In special issues, the Guest Editor advises on reviewer selection. Authors' suggested reviewers are considered, provided they have not collaborated with co-authors in the past five years or worked at the same institute.

Editorial Decision and Revision:

Following peer review, the editor communicates one of the following decisions:

• Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper is conditionally accepted pending minor revisions, with authors given seven days for adjustments.

• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance depends on substantial revisions. Authors respond point-by-point or provide rebuttals. Usually, one round of major revisions is allowed, and authors resubmit within fifteen days.

• Reject and Encourage Resubmission: Articles requiring additional experiments for conclusive results are rejected with encouragement for resubmission after further experiments.

• Reject: Manuscripts with serious flaws, lacking original contributions, are rejected without an offer for resubmission.

All reviewer comments require a point-by-point response, with disagreements clarified.

Author Appeals:

Authors may appeal a rejection by providing a detailed justification and responses to reviewers' and/or Editor's comments. The Editor-in-Chief forwards the appeal to an Editorial Board member or external scientist for advisory recommendations. A reject decision at this stage is final.

Journal Paper Workflow:

Upon successful submission, a manuscript number is assigned, indicating a successful submission. No further submission is required. The paper undergoes consideration by the editor and, if it passes pre-review, proceeds to peer review by field experts.