Reviewer Guidelines

Computational Methods uses a single-blind peer-review process. Reviewers remain anonymous to authors, while reviewers are aware of the authors' identities.

The purpose of peer review is to provide an independent, constructive, and expert assessment of the manuscript's scientific, mathematical, computational, methodological, and scholarly quality.

Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers should accept assignments only when they have appropriate expertise in the subject, methodology, computational technique, mathematical area, application domain, or other relevant field required to evaluate the manuscript.

For interdisciplinary manuscripts, reviewers should evaluate the aspects of the work within their expertise and inform the editor if specialist expertise outside their field is necessary.

Reviewer Responsibilities

• Assess the originality and significance of the work.
• Evaluate the mathematical, computational, theoretical, experimental, or methodological soundness of the manuscript.
• Assess whether the methods are described sufficiently for appropriate evaluation.
• Evaluate whether the results support the conclusions.
• Identify important errors, omissions, unsupported claims, or methodological weaknesses.
• Consider computational reproducibility where appropriate.
• Consider the appropriateness and quality of datasets, algorithms, models, simulations, statistical methods, and validation procedures.
• Identify relevant ethical or research-integrity concerns.
• Provide constructive and professional comments.
• Maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Computational Reproducibility

Where relevant, reviewers should consider whether sufficient information is provided concerning algorithms, mathematical assumptions, computational procedures, datasets, parameter settings, software, validation methods, and evaluation criteria.

Reviewers should distinguish between information that is reasonably necessary for evaluating reproducibility and materials that cannot legitimately be disclosed because of confidentiality, licensing, security, privacy, or other restrictions.

Data, Software, and Code

Where computational work relies substantially on datasets, software, source code, libraries, or external computational resources, reviewers may consider whether their use is appropriately described and cited.

Reviewers should not demand access to confidential or legally restricted materials when such access is not reasonably possible.

Research Ethics

For research involving human participants, medical information, animals, sensitive datasets, or other regulated activities, reviewers should consider whether appropriate ethical information has been provided.

For health-related research, reviewers may consult recognized reporting standards and the EQUATOR Network.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest.

Reviewers should decline an assignment where a personal, professional, institutional, financial, academic, or other relationship could compromise impartiality.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts, datasets, source code, figures, supplementary files, and editorial correspondence are confidential.

Reviewers must not share, copy, distribute, publicly discuss, or use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal or professional benefit.

Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscript content, unpublished datasets, source code, figures, or peer-review information into generative AI systems or other external tools where confidentiality cannot be assured.

Reviewers should follow the relevant principles in the ICMJE AI guidance where applicable.

Review Comments

Reviewer comments should be objective, specific, constructive, and professional. Personal criticism of authors is inappropriate.

Reviewers should distinguish major concerns affecting validity or interpretation from minor corrections and recommendations.

Recommendation

Reviewers may recommend:

• Acceptance
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Rejection

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or a formally designated editor acting under delegated editorial authority.

Publication Ethics

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor of credible concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or falsified results, manipulated figures, authorship concerns, peer-review manipulation, undisclosed conflicts, or other research-integrity issues.

Reviewers should follow recognized publication-ethics principles, including the COPE Core Practices.