Peer Review & Editorial Process

Our commitment to rigorous, fair, and transparent peer review.

Editorial Policy

Intelligence, Informatics and Infrastructure serves as a central platform for academic and technological advances in the application of artificial intelligence and data science to civil engineering and infrastructure. The Editorial Board prioritizes work that demonstrates scientific validity, originality, and significance, and welcomes interdisciplinary and emerging research areas. All editorial decisions are made independently of commercial or political considerations.

Peer Review Model

The journal operates a single-blind peer review process: reviewers are aware of the authors' identities, while the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors. Every submission — including original research papers, review articles, technical reports, invited papers, and secondary (translated) publications — undergoes editorial screening followed by review by at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field.

The Review Process

  1. 1
    Submission & editorial screening.

    Manuscripts are submitted via ScholarOne Manuscripts. The Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor first checks each manuscript for fit with the aims and scope, ethical compliance, basic scientific quality, and language, and the editorial office screens every submission for textual similarity using iThenticate (Crossref Similarity Check). Manuscripts that clearly fall short may be declined without external review (desk rejection).

  2. 2
    Assignment to a handling editor.

    A suitable Associate Editor or Editorial Board member is assigned to manage the review, selected to avoid conflicts of interest.

  3. 3
    Independent peer review.

    The manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers, who may be invited from Japan and abroad. Reviewers assess the work against the criteria below and provide constructive, respectful comments.

  4. 4
    Decision.

    Based on the reviews, the handling editor recommends a decision and the Editorial Board makes the final decision: accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject. Reviewer comments are generally relayed to authors in full.

  5. 5
    Revision & re-review.

    Revised manuscripts are reassessed by the handling editor and, where appropriate, returned to the original reviewers. The final decision rests with the Editorial Board.

Criteria for Acceptance

Manuscripts are evaluated primarily on:

Because this is a rapidly developing field, the Editorial Board gives particular weight to novelty, future potential, and scientific validity. Reviewers are asked to provide constructive guidance to help authors realise that potential, while upholding rigorous standards of soundness and integrity. A manuscript should not be declined solely for a lack of completeness or polish where the work is sound, original, and of genuine value.

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers are essential to the quality and integrity of the journal. We ask reviewers to observe the following guidelines.

Before accepting an invitation

What to evaluate

Writing your review

Reviewer ethics

Revised manuscripts

When invited to re-review, assess whether your comments and those of the other reviewers have been adequately addressed, and advise the handling editor accordingly.

Reviews are conducted single-blind; reviewer identities are kept confidential. We are grateful to our reviewers for their time and expertise.

Special Cases

Invited papers

To highlight state-of-the-art interdisciplinary research, the journal may invite contributions from leading researchers. Invited papers are subject to the same peer-review process as unsolicited submissions.

Submissions authored by editors

Manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, editors, Editorial Board members, or their close collaborators are handled by an independent editor who has no conflict of interest with the authors. The submitting editor is excluded from all editorial discussions and decisions regarding that manuscript, and has no access to reviewer identities.

Translated & secondary publications

The journal may consider English translations or secondary publications of work previously published in another language (e.g., in Japanese) when the submission offers clear value to an international readership, the original publication is fully cited, and copyright/permission requirements are met. Such manuscripts must clearly state their relationship to the original work and undergo the journal's standard editorial screening and peer review, in line with ICMJE recommendations.

Handling of previously presented work

Manuscripts containing material previously presented (e.g., in conference proceedings) may be accepted if substantially restructured with new findings or perspectives. Authors must accurately cite the prior material; the Editorial Board assesses whether sufficient new knowledge is presented.

Timelines & Additional Policies

Indicative timelines. As a guide (based on recent experience), the typical time from submission to first decision is about 30 days, and from acceptance to publication about 50 days; authors are normally given about 3 weeks to return revisions. These are indicative and may vary with reviewer availability and the extent of revision; where delays occur, authors are informed and may withdraw if they wish.

Confidentiality & Independence

All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. The identities of individual reviewers are kept strictly confidential and are not disclosed to authors or third parties. Editorial decisions are made solely on scholarly grounds and are free from interference by the publisher, the society, or any commercial interest. Authors who wish to appeal a decision may contact the editorial office; appeals are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics policy.