Editorial Process and Publication Timelines

Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS) is committed to maintaining a rigorous, fair, independent, and transparent editorial process. The journal recognizes that a reliable peer-review system must balance the timely evaluation of manuscripts with the careful assessment of scientific quality, methodological validity, originality, and research integrity.

Editorial decisions are guided by the journal's Aims and Scope, established peer-review procedures, and publication ethics policies. The journal's editorial practices are informed by internationally recognized principles of responsible scholarly publishing, including guidance developed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

NOIS seeks to communicate editorial decisions within reasonable timeframes while ensuring that scientific evaluation is not compromised by predetermined processing deadlines.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Indicative timeframe: Up to 5 business days for desk-rejection notification.

Following submission, manuscripts undergo an initial editorial assessment to determine their suitability for the journal.

This assessment considers the manuscript's relevance to the Aims and Scope, scientific contribution, completeness, adherence to author guidelines, methodological suitability, and compliance with applicable research and publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that fall outside the journal's scope, do not satisfy essential submission requirements, or exhibit fundamental deficiencies may be rejected without external peer review.

The journal aims to notify authors of such desk-rejection decisions within five business days whenever possible.

This timeframe applies specifically to the initial screening and notification of manuscripts that are declined without external review. It should not be interpreted as the expected duration of peer review or as a guarantee that every manuscript will receive a substantive editorial decision within five business days.

Manuscripts that satisfy the preliminary assessment requirements may proceed to external peer review.

2. External Peer Review and First Decision

Indicative timeframe: Approximately 8–10 weeks from submission for manuscripts undergoing external peer review.

NOIS operates a double-anonymous peer-review system intended to protect the impartiality and confidentiality of the evaluation process.

Manuscripts selected for external review are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the manuscript's research area.

Reviewers are invited to evaluate the scientific contribution, methodological rigor, theoretical or empirical validity, clarity of presentation, relevance of the findings, and adequacy of the evidence supporting the conclusions.

Where applicable, reviewers may also examine mathematical proofs, computational experiments, algorithmic comparisons, statistical analyses, reproducibility information, and the consistency of the conclusions with the reported results.

The journal aims to communicate the first substantive editorial decision, including relevant reviewer feedback, within approximately eight to ten weeks from submission.

Depending on the evaluation, the first decision may involve rejection, a request for revisions, or acceptance where scientifically justified.

This timeframe is an editorial target rather than a statistically established average or a guaranteed decision date.

The actual duration may vary according to the availability of qualified reviewers, the technical complexity of the manuscript, and the need for additional expert evaluation.

3. Manuscript Revision and Reassessment

When revisions are requested, authors receive an editorial decision explaining the required changes and, where applicable, the relevant reviewers' comments.

Authors are expected to address the scientific and methodological concerns raised during evaluation and to provide a clear explanation of the revisions made.

A revised manuscript may be examined by the handling editor, returned to the original reviewers, or referred to additional independent experts when further scientific assessment is necessary.

The need for additional review is determined by the significance of the revisions, the unresolved scientific questions, and the evidence required to support an editorial decision.

Revisions are not considered automatically acceptable merely because the authors have submitted a response to reviewer comments.

The journal may request further revisions or reject a manuscript if substantial concerns remain unresolved.

Revision deadlines are communicated to authors through the editorial system. The time required for author revisions and any subsequent evaluation can affect the overall processing period.

4. Final Editorial Decision

Indicative timeframe: Typically 15–29 weeks from submission, including revisions when applicable.

NOIS aims to complete the editorial evaluation and communicate a final decision within approximately fifteen to twenty-nine weeks from the date of submission, depending on the requirements of the individual manuscript.

The overall period may include initial screening, external peer review, author revisions, further reviewer assessment, and final editorial consideration.

Final decisions are based on the scientific evidence presented, the adequacy of the methods, the significance and reliability of the results, the resolution of substantive reviewer concerns, and compliance with the journal's editorial and ethical standards.

The final decision is made by the responsible editor in accordance with the journal's editorial governance procedures.

Acceptance is not guaranteed at any stage of the editorial process. The completion of peer review, submission of revisions, or payment of any applicable publication charge does not establish an entitlement to publication.

Where significant scientific or ethical concerns remain unresolved, additional evaluation may be required, and processing may extend beyond the indicative timeframe.

5. Online Publication Following Acceptance

Indicative timeframe: Within 5 working days after final acceptance, subject to production requirements.

Following final acceptance, manuscripts proceed to the journal's production process.

Production activities may include final formatting, bibliographic verification, checking author and affiliation details, confirmation of copyright and licensing information, preparation of the publication files, and registration or verification of the article's Digital Object Identifier (DOI).

Authors may be required to review and approve publication proofs and resolve outstanding production queries before online publication.

NOIS aims to publish accepted manuscripts online within five working days after final acceptance, provided that all necessary production requirements have been completed.

This is a production target rather than a guaranteed publication period. Delays may arise when corrections, author confirmations, technical verification, or other essential production activities remain outstanding.

Published articles are made openly accessible through the journal's official website.

6. Editorial Timeframes: Targets and Actual Performance

The processing periods described above represent the journal's indicative editorial and production targets.

They must not be interpreted as calculated averages, medians, or historical performance indicators unless supported by verified editorial records.

NOIS distinguishes between the following measures:

Time to Desk Rejection: The period from receipt of a complete submission to notification of rejection without external review.

Time to First Decision Following Peer Review: The period from receipt of a complete submission to the first substantive editorial decision after external evaluation.

Time to Final Acceptance: The period from receipt of a complete submission to the formal final acceptance decision for accepted manuscripts.

Time from Acceptance to Online Publication: The period from the formal final acceptance decision to the date on which the article is first made publicly available online.

These measures describe different stages and manuscript populations. The time to an initial desk rejection is not equivalent to the duration of external peer review, and the time to final acceptance does not describe the processing duration of rejected manuscripts.

When historical processing statistics are reported, NOIS will distinguish the observed results from its indicative targets and identify the reporting period and methodology used.

7. Acceptance Rate and Editorial Statistics

The acceptance rate is an observed editorial outcome. It is not a target percentage and is not used as a predetermined quota for accepting or rejecting manuscripts.

Acceptance decisions are based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, relevance, and compliance with the journal's editorial requirements.

NOIS does not report an unverified acceptance percentage as an indicator of journal quality or selectivity.

Annual acceptance-rate reporting requires reconciliation of the journal's editorial decision records to establish the number of manuscripts accepted and rejected during a clearly defined reporting period.

For transparency and consistency, the annual acceptance rate will be calculated as follows:

Acceptance Rate (%) = [Number of Manuscripts Accepted / (Number of Manuscripts Accepted + Number of Manuscripts Rejected)] × 100

The calculation will include original scholarly manuscript submissions that received a final acceptance or rejection decision during the reporting year.

Rejections at the initial editorial screening stage and rejections following external peer review will both be included in the number of rejected manuscripts.

Each original submission will be counted once in the relevant final-decision category. Multiple revision rounds for the same submission will not be counted as separate submissions.

Manuscripts withdrawn before a final editorial decision, administratively closed incomplete submissions, and manuscripts still awaiting a final decision will not be classified as accepted or rejected in this calculation.

Withdrawals and pending submissions will be identified separately where annual submission statistics are reported.

The reporting period will be based on the calendar year in which the final editorial decision was recorded, regardless of the original submission year.

Verified annual statistics will identify the reporting year, accepted and rejected manuscript counts, and the resulting acceptance rate. Supporting submission and withdrawal counts will be reported where the underlying records permit reliable verification.

No historical acceptance percentage will be published without supporting editorial records.

8. Statistical Reporting of Editorial Processing Times

The journal recognizes the importance of distinguishing actual processing performance from planned editorial targets.

When sufficient validated data are available, editorial processing statistics will be calculated using the recorded dates of manuscript submission, editorial decisions, final acceptance, and online publication.

For each reporting period, the journal will identify the manuscript population included in the analysis and the stage being measured.

Median processing times will be preferred for summarizing typical editorial durations because they are less affected by unusually long or short cases.

Processing statistics may be reported separately for manuscripts rejected during initial screening, manuscripts evaluated through external peer review, accepted manuscripts, and articles published online.

The journal will not combine substantially different editorial stages into a single processing-time statistic without identifying the underlying methodology.

Statistics will be derived from documented editorial records rather than estimates, intended processing periods, or manually selected examples.

9. Editorial Independence and Research Integrity

The editorial process of NOIS is conducted independently of commercial considerations, institutional relationships, and publication fee arrangements.

Editorial decisions are based on the scientific merits of each manuscript and its compliance with the journal's policies.

Editors and reviewers are expected to disclose potential conflicts of interest and to maintain appropriate confidentiality throughout the evaluation process.

Where an editor has a conflict of interest involving a submitted manuscript, editorial responsibility must be assigned to an appropriately qualified independent editor.

The journal does not permit editorial decisions to be influenced by an author's willingness or ability to pay publication charges.

Suspected research or publication misconduct may require additional investigation before an editorial decision can be completed.

Such investigations may extend beyond normal editorial processing targets when necessary to ensure a fair and properly documented outcome.

10. Delays, Author Communication, and Editorial Accountability

NOIS recognizes that timely and informative communication is an important part of responsible scholarly publishing.

Authors can monitor the progress of their submissions through the journal's Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

When the evaluation of a manuscript extends beyond the journal's indicative processing timeframe, authors may contact the editorial office to request an update.

The editorial office will review the status of the submission and provide available information about the progress of the evaluation, subject to reviewer confidentiality and applicable editorial procedures.

Manuscripts will not be accepted or rejected solely to satisfy a processing-time target. Scientific integrity and the quality of editorial assessment take precedence over administrative speed.

Authors who wish to raise concerns regarding unusual delays, editorial procedures, or the handling of their manuscripts may refer to the journal's published complaints and appeals procedures.

11. Commitment to Transparent Editorial Reporting

NOIS is committed to maintaining a credible, consistent, and accountable editorial system.

The journal aims to support transparency by clearly describing its peer-review procedures, distinguishing expected editorial timelines from actual processing statistics, and using verifiable editorial records for published performance indicators.

The journal's editorial policies are intended to support independent scientific assessment, responsible manuscript handling, accurate communication with authors, and the continued integrity of the scholarly record.

Further information is available through the following official journal pages:

Aims and Scope: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/aims_and_scope

Journal Highlights: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/highlights

Editorial Policies: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/policies

Publication Ethics Statement: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/publication_ethics

Information for Authors: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/information_for_authors

Editorial Office: nois@sciencesforce.com