1. Policy Statement

Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS), published by Sciences Force LLC, is committed to independent, rigorous, confidential, fair, and constructive peer review.

Peer review is intended to evaluate the scientific validity, originality, methodological soundness, clarity, ethical acceptability, and contribution of scholarly work before publication.

The journal uses a double-anonymous peer-review model for scholarly manuscripts selected for external review. Under this model, reviewers are not formally informed of the authors' identities, and authors are not informed of the reviewers' identities.

The journal distinguishes initial editorial screening from independent external peer review. Submissions that do not meet essential requirements may be declined without external review.

This policy sets out the responsibilities of editors, reviewers, authors, guest editors, and publishing personnel, together with procedures for reviewer selection, identity verification, conflicts of interest, scientific assessment, editorial decisions, confidentiality, and prevention of peer-review manipulation.

Its principles are informed by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and the publisher's Peer Review and Editorial Process framework.

2. Peer-Review Model

The default model for externally reviewed scholarly contributions to NOIS is double-anonymous peer review.

The identities of reviewers are protected from the authors. The authors' identities are withheld from the reviewers through appropriate preparation of review files and configuration of the editorial system.

Authorized editors and relevant administrative personnel may have access to author information when needed to manage submissions, verify conflicts of interest, or conduct legitimate editorial procedures.

Double-anonymous review reduces certain risks of bias but does not guarantee that identities cannot be inferred from preprints, distinctive research methods, self-citations, public data repositories, or other external information.

Authors must remove identifying details from the manuscripts and supporting files designated for anonymous review.

Editors must verify the files selected for reviewers before sending invitations or making materials available.

Reviewers must not deliberately attempt to discover the identities of authors.

Where a reviewer inadvertently recognizes an author, any resulting conflict of interest must be disclosed promptly.

3. Article Types and Applicability of External Peer Review

Original Research Articles, Review Articles, and Mini-Reviews that pass initial editorial screening undergo independent external scientific peer review.

Scholarly Perspectives, Correspondence, and Comments presenting substantive original research, significant methodological claims, or scientific conclusions requiring specialist assessment are also subject to independent external review.

Non-research editorial communications, administrative announcements, publisher notices, formal corrections, retraction notices, expressions of concern, and other editorial notices may be assessed through an appropriate editorial or research integrity procedure rather than conventional external peer review.

Such material must be clearly identified by article type and must not be misrepresented as externally peer-reviewed research.

Where an article receives a process that differs materially from the journal's standard external review model, the distinction must be disclosed appropriately.

Special Issue research articles are subject to the same independent peer-review standards as comparable articles in regular issues.

An invited submission is not exempt from independent scientific evaluation merely because it was solicited by an editor or guest editor.

4. Initial Editorial Screening

Each manuscript undergoes an initial assessment before a decision is made to send it for external review.

This assessment considers:

- Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope.

- Scientific originality and contribution.

- Adequacy of the research question and methodology.

- Compliance with submission and reporting requirements.

- Essential declarations concerning ethics, authorship, competing interests, funding, and research materials.

- Apparent problems involving duplication, plagiarism, fabricated content, or other integrity concerns.

- Clarity and completeness sufficient for meaningful scientific assessment.

- Suitability of the article type.

The responsible editor may request necessary clarification or technical completion.

A manuscript may be rejected without external review when it clearly fails to meet the journal's scientific, scope, reporting, or ethical requirements.

A desk rejection is an editorial decision and must not be represented as an outcome of independent external peer review.

Significant integrity concerns require an appropriate evidence-based assessment rather than automatic rejection based solely on a software score or unverified allegation.

5. Number and Independence of Reviewers

For Original Research Articles, Review Articles, Mini-Reviews, and other scholarly submissions requiring full external peer review, NOIS requires at least two independent external expert reports before a favorable final scientific acceptance decision.

The handling editor may invite a third reviewer or additional specialists when the manuscript is interdisciplinary, the existing assessments are materially inconsistent, or specific mathematical, statistical, computational, or ethical expertise is necessary.

The number of reviewer invitations may exceed the number of completed reports because invited individuals can decline, become unavailable, or be withdrawn following a conflict-of-interest assessment.

A declined invitation, an incomplete review, or an editorial assessment does not count as a completed independent external review.

Where a report proves unreliable or the reviewer's independence has been compromised, it must not be treated as valid independent evidence for the acceptance decision.

The responsible editor evaluates the substance and quality of the reports rather than applying a simple vote-counting rule.

6. Editorial Independence and Responsibilities

The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for oversight of the journal's scientific review standards and the integrity of editorial decisions.

Authorized handling editors may manage individual manuscripts, invite reviewers, assess reports, coordinate revisions, and make recommendations or decisions within their delegated authority.

Editors must exercise scientific judgment independently of advertising, sponsorship, publication charges, institutional relationships, or other commercial considerations.

The publisher provides administrative and technical support without improperly directing scientific acceptance decisions.

Editors are responsible for ensuring that reviewers are appropriately qualified, sufficiently independent, and able to undertake the assigned evaluation.

They must consider contradictory reviews carefully and obtain further advice when necessary.

A reviewer's recommendation is advisory and does not replace an editor's responsibility for the final decision.

A significant departure from the review evidence must be supported by a documented scientific or procedural rationale.

7. Reviewer Selection and Scientific Expertise

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their demonstrated subject expertise, methodological competence, professional integrity, and ability to provide a timely and independent assessment.

Reviewer selection must reflect the actual scientific content of the manuscript.

A paper combining neutrosophic mathematics, optimization, and artificial intelligence may require different specialists to evaluate its mathematical foundation, algorithmic implementation, and empirical validation.

An individual's general academic seniority or extensive publication record does not automatically establish expertise in the specific research area.

Editors should consider relevant peer-reviewed publications, current research activities, technical competence, and the need for complementary expertise.

Reviewer selection should not be based on nationality, language background, personal relationships, institutional prestige, or other irrelevant considerations.

A geographically and institutionally diverse reviewer pool is encouraged, provided that scientific suitability and independence remain the primary criteria.

8. Verification of Reviewer Identity

Before appointing an unfamiliar reviewer, the responsible editor must take reasonable steps to verify the individual's identity and relevant professional credentials.

Verification may include examination of an official institutional profile, professional email address, ORCID record, verifiable scholarly publications, or other credible independent information.

An institutional email address is useful evidence but is not conclusive proof of identity.

An ORCID identifier or a public academic profile is likewise not sufficient by itself when the information cannot be linked reliably to the individual accepting the invitation.

Where a personal email address is used, additional verification may be appropriate.

Suspicious, inconsistent, or unverified reviewer identities must be investigated before confidential manuscript materials are made accessible.

The journal must not appoint a reviewer solely because a person supplied a name, an email address, or a claimed academic qualification.

Editors must avoid disclosing confidential manuscript information during preliminary identity verification.

9. Author-Suggested and Author-Opposed Reviewers

Authors may suggest suitably qualified reviewers when the submission workflow permits or when the editorial office requests recommendations.

Such suggestions are advisory and do not bind the handling editor.

Authors must not submit fabricated reviewer identities, impersonate potential reviewers, or provide contact information that they or an unauthorized intermediary control.

Editors must independently verify author-suggested reviewers and assess their expertise, professional relationships, and potential conflicts of interest.

An author-suggested reviewer must not be appointed merely because of the author's recommendation.

Authors may identify individuals whom they believe should not review the manuscript and provide a reasoned explanation.

The editor will consider such requests but retains authority to select independent reviewers.

The journal must not disclose reviewer identities or other confidential selection information to authors simply to obtain approval.

10. Conflicts of Interest and Reviewer Recusal

Reviewers must disclose actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.

Relevant relationships may include current institutional employment with an author, close collaboration, supervisory relationships, joint research funding, financial interests, personal relationships, direct academic competition, or other circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

As a general rule, a reviewer should decline an assignment when they are employed at the same institution as an author or have had a close supervisory, collaborative, or joint-grant relationship with an author during the preceding three years.

Continuing relationships and significant interests originating earlier than three years ago may also require recusal.

The three-year period is not an automatic safe harbor.

Because author identities are concealed from reviewers during double-anonymous review, the handling editor must independently screen known author information against proposed reviewer relationships.

Reviewers who become aware of an author identity or discover a relevant conflict during review must notify the editor promptly and seek instructions.

A conflicted reviewer must not continue to assess the manuscript unless the editor has determined that the matter does not prevent an impartial review.

Material conflict assessments and reassignment decisions must be documented.

11. Reviewer Invitations and Acceptance of Assignments

Reviewer invitations must identify the journal, manuscript title or relevant abstract information, subject area, expected responsibilities, and the applicable response and review deadlines.

Potential reviewers should accept assignments only when they possess the necessary competence, can provide an impartial evaluation, and reasonably expect to meet the specified deadline.

A reviewer whose expertise covers only part of an interdisciplinary manuscript should inform the editor of that limitation.

Reviewers should decline promptly when they are unavailable or have a material conflict of interest.

Acceptance of an invitation signifies agreement to the journal's confidentiality, ethical conduct, conflict-of-interest, and review requirements.

Reviewers must not accept assignments merely to obtain access to unpublished research.

If a reviewer cannot complete an accepted assignment, the editor must be informed as soon as possible so that alternative arrangements can be made.

12. Confidentiality and Protection of Unpublished Research

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly materials.

Reviewers must not distribute, publish, share, retain for unrelated use, or exploit the manuscript or its supplementary materials.

They must not disclose the work's contents, its editorial status, unpublished data, mathematical results, algorithms, or reviewer discussions to unauthorized individuals.

Reviewers may not use unpublished information to advance their own research, gain commercial advantage, disadvantage competing researchers, or make public claims before authorized publication.

Review files must be stored securely during assessment.

After completion or termination of an assignment, reviewers must delete unnecessary local copies in accordance with the journal's instructions and applicable legal or institutional requirements.

Personal notes and retained material must not create an unauthorized archive of confidential submissions.

Reviewers must not contact authors directly about the manuscript without the handling editor's permission.

Confidentiality obligations continue after the review has ended.

13. Co-Reviewing and Mentored Peer Review

NOIS recognizes the educational value of supervised peer-review experience.

An invited reviewer may involve a suitably qualified junior researcher or colleague only with the prior explicit permission of the handling editor.

Before any access is granted, the additional participant must be identified to the editorial office and assessed for relevant expertise, confidentiality obligations, and conflicts of interest.

The invited reviewer remains accountable for the submitted report.

The contribution of the additional participant must be documented in the journal's confidential editorial records.

Reviewers must not privately delegate the review, share a manuscript with students or colleagues without authorization, or submit another person's work as their own.

Mentored review must preserve the applicable double-anonymous model and the rights of the authors.

Any recognition of a co-reviewer must comply with confidentiality requirements and relevant consent.

14. Generative Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

NOIS does not permit reviewers to use generative AI or AI-assisted content-generation systems to perform the scientific evaluation of confidential manuscripts.

Reviewers must not upload manuscript text, figures, mathematical proofs, data, source code, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, or confidential author information to generative AI services.

Generative AI must not be used to produce substantive reviewer reports, scientific recommendations, evaluations of mathematical validity, or manuscript acceptance advice.

This journal-specific restriction applies even when a service is described as private unless NOIS formally adopts and publishes a revised policy after appropriate governance and security assessment.

Ordinary non-generative accessibility, spelling, or formatting tools that do not disclose confidential content or replace human scientific judgment are not prohibited by this requirement.

Authorized publisher-operated screening systems are governed by separate data protection and editorial integrity procedures and do not constitute permission for reviewers to use generative AI.

Reviewers remain personally responsible for their assessments.

15. Scientific Objectivity and Professional Conduct

Reviews must be evidence-based, constructive, respectful, and directed toward the work rather than the individuals presumed to have produced it.

Reviewers must not make discriminatory remarks, use hostile or humiliating language, or dismiss research because of an author's institution, nationality, gender, career stage, or personal background.

Critical recommendations should identify the scientific issue and explain why it matters.

Where possible, reviewers should distinguish fundamental validity concerns from correctable methodological limitations, presentation problems, and optional improvements.

Reviewers should not request extensive additional experiments or theoretical developments merely to expand the manuscript beyond its stated scientific purpose.

Requests for new work must be justified by a material need to evaluate validity, reproducibility, or scientific significance.

Personal preferences must not be presented as universally binding requirements without adequate scientific justification.

16. Scientific Review of Mathematical Contributions

Reviewers assessing mathematical research must evaluate the precision and validity of the theoretical framework.

Relevant questions include whether essential definitions and notation are consistent, assumptions are sufficient, and theorems are supported by correct reasoning.

Reviewers should examine material steps in proofs and identify missing conditions, unjustified implications, circular arguments, or counterexamples when relevant.

Claims of existence, uniqueness, equivalence, convergence, optimality, stability, and generalization require appropriate justification.

Numerical examples must not be accepted as general proofs unless the method provides a mathematically valid exhaustive or certified argument.

Reviewers should assess the relationship of proposed results to established literature and consider whether claimed innovations are genuinely new or follow from existing formulations.

Where complete verification of an extensive proof is beyond the reviewer's competence or available resources, this limitation must be disclosed to the editor rather than concealed.

17. Review of Neutrosophic and Uncertainty-Based Models

For research involving neutrosophic sets, logic, statistics, optimization, fuzzy systems, or other uncertainty frameworks, reviewers must assess the compatibility of definitions, assumptions, and proposed mathematical operations.

Relevant considerations include the domains and interpretation of uncertainty components, mathematical consistency, boundary behavior, and stated model properties.

Reviewers should examine whether novel operators or structures have been distinguished meaningfully from existing approaches.

A change of terminology, notation, or parameter naming does not by itself establish originality.

Where the proposed model claims an extension of established theory, reviewers should assess its reduction to known cases and identify any additional assumptions required.

Examples and numerical calculations should be checked for consistency with the manuscript's formal definitions.

Reviewers must not assume that all neutrosophic representations share identical mathematical constraints.

18. Review of Optimization Algorithms

Reviewers evaluating optimization research should examine the problem formulation, objectives, constraints, algorithmic steps, parameter choices, and stopping criteria.

Pseudocode, mathematical equations, and computational implementation descriptions must be mutually consistent.

Claims about convergence, optimality, computational complexity, robustness, or scalability must be supported by appropriate theoretical or empirical evidence.

Benchmark comparisons should use relevant baseline methods and sufficiently comparable evaluation budgets.

A common number of iterations is not necessarily a fair computational budget when algorithms differ in the number or cost of objective-function evaluations.

Reviewers should consider whether stochastic algorithms were tested with suitable independent runs, whether variability was reported, and whether conclusions are supported by the observed performance.

Selective presentation of favorable results, inappropriate benchmark selection, or unsupported assertions of universal superiority must be identified.

Where relevant, reproducibility of computational experiments should be examined through the supplied code, configurations, and data documentation.

19. Review of Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems

Reviewers assessing artificial intelligence research should examine the data sources, model design, training procedures, validation strategy, baseline comparisons, and evaluation measures.

They should consider possible data leakage, inappropriate reuse of test data, class imbalance, unreliable statistical conclusions, model overfitting, and limitations of generalization.

Claims concerning interpretability, explainability, fairness, robustness, security, or real-world effectiveness must be supported by the relevant evaluation.

Where generative AI models form part of the research methodology, material model versions, prompts, settings, data sources, output-selection procedures, and verification methods should be described as appropriate.

Synthetic or AI-generated data must not be represented as independent real-world observations.

The review should distinguish a genuine scientific contribution from the routine application of an established tool without adequate methodological innovation or substantive findings.

When specialized verification is necessary, reviewers should identify the need for additional independent expertise.

20. Reproducibility, Data, Code, and Supporting Materials

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript provides sufficient information to assess its essential scientific claims.

For theoretical work, this includes mathematical assumptions, precise statements, proofs, and supporting derivations.

For computational research, relevant information may include data provenance, source code, software versions, dependencies, random seeds, parameter settings, experimental budgets, and reproducible workflows.

For empirical work, this includes suitable reporting of study design, analytical methods, statistical assumptions, and limitations.

Reviewers should verify the presence and adequacy of Data Availability and, where applicable, Code Availability Statements.

Legitimate restrictions on research materials must be considered.

The absence of openly available code or data does not automatically establish research misconduct.

Reviewers should explain how limitations in access affect their ability to assess a study.

NOIS does not require reviewers to perform complete independent reproduction of every submitted analysis or proof.

Any independent verification undertaken must be represented accurately.

21. Publication Ethics and Research Integrity Assessment

Reviewers should consider apparent issues involving plagiarism, redundant publication, fabricated or manipulated data, misleading figures, inappropriate authorship, undisclosed interests, or ethical noncompliance.

A similarity score alone does not prove plagiarism.

An automated AI-content detection result alone does not establish research misconduct.

When reviewers identify a credible concern, they must communicate it confidentially to the editor and provide relevant evidence or precise reasons.

They must not independently contact the authors, institutions, or publishers of suspected sources without authorization.

Reviewers should not present unresolved allegations as established facts.

Editors are responsible for determining whether additional inquiry, technical verification, institutional involvement, or formal research integrity procedures are justified.

22. Citation Practices and Research Context

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript acknowledges the relevant scholarly literature and accurately distinguishes prior results from the proposed contribution.

Citation requests must be based on scientific relevance.

Reviewers must not require authors to cite their own work, the journal, the publisher, or specific research groups for the purpose of increasing citation metrics.

Self-citations may be appropriate when they provide directly relevant evidence or context, but they require the same relevance standard as any other reference.

Requests to expand the literature review should identify important omissions and explain their significance.

Reviewers should not demand unnecessary citations merely to reflect personal preferences or to inflate the reference list.

23. Structure and Content of Reviewer Reports

A substantive reviewer report should normally contain:

Summary: A concise description of the research question, principal claims, and claimed contribution.

Major Strengths: Scientifically important strengths of the manuscript.

Major Concerns: Problems that materially affect originality, validity, methodology, interpretation, or reproducibility.

Specific Comments: Numbered and actionable points, with references to relevant sections, equations, tables, figures, or supporting files.

Ethics and Transparency: Any concerns relating to integrity, conflicts of interest, research ethics, data, software, images, or authorship.

Minor Comments: Correctable issues of clarity, notation, organization, language, and presentation.

Overall Assessment: An evidence-based recommendation consistent with the identified scientific issues.

Reviewers should distinguish verified errors from suspected problems and from optional improvements.

Reports should be sufficiently detailed to help authors understand the scientific basis of the evaluation.

24. Comments to Authors and Confidential Comments to Editors

NOIS may provide separate fields for comments intended for authors and confidential comments intended only for the editor.

Comments to authors should include the scientific reasons for significant concerns and enough detail to permit a meaningful response.

Confidential comments may address suspected misconduct, reviewer conflicts, identity concerns, or matters requiring editorial investigation.

The confidential field must not be used to conceal essential scientific objections from authors without a legitimate reason.

Reviewers must not place defamatory accusations, unsupported personal allegations, or inappropriate confidential information in either field.

Editors may edit or withhold inappropriate wording while preserving the substance of legitimate scientific criticism.

Reviewer identities and internal editorial correspondence remain confidential under the journal's double-anonymous model.

25. Reviewer Recommendations and Editorial Decisions

Reviewers provide advisory recommendations according to the options available in the journal's editorial system.

A recommendation may support acceptance, revision, additional review, or rejection.

Reviewers must explain the scientific reasons for their recommendation.

The handling editor evaluates the reports in light of their quality, expertise, agreement on material issues, and relationship to the journal's published standards.

Conflicting recommendations do not automatically require rejection or a third review.

The editor must assess whether the conflict concerns an essential scientific issue and seek additional evidence or expertise where necessary.

Acceptance must not be determined through a mechanical majority vote or by selecting whichever report supports a preferred outcome.

Final editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or by another appropriately authorized independent editor acting within delegated authority and applicable oversight procedures.

26. Revisions and Additional Review Rounds

When revision is invited, authors are expected to provide a point-by-point response addressing substantive editorial and reviewer comments.

The revised manuscript must identify relevant changes and include updated analyses or supporting materials where necessary.

Editors should determine whether the revised version adequately resolves the concerns that justified the original decision.

Minor changes may be evaluated editorially when appropriate.

Substantive methodological, mathematical, computational, or empirical revisions may require reassessment by the original reviewers or other independent specialists.

A second review round is not automatically required for every minor correction.

Reviewers should examine whether material concerns have been addressed and avoid introducing unrelated new requirements without a sound scientific justification.

The journal may seek additional review when revisions introduce materially new findings or methods.

27. Timeliness and Communication

Reviewer invitations specify the requested response date and review completion deadline.

Reviewers should respond promptly, accept only assignments they can reasonably complete, and notify the editor if delays or changes in availability arise.

When necessary, a reviewer may request an extension before the deadline.

Editors monitor outstanding assignments and may send reminders, reassign manuscripts, or seek replacement reviewers when review cannot be completed appropriately.

The journal seeks to avoid unnecessary delays while recognizing that complex mathematical proofs, computational methods, and interdisciplinary studies may require specialist assessment.

Published editorial timeline estimates must be distinguished from measured actual performance and supported by relevant records.

Authors should receive appropriate communication when material delays affect the expected course of assessment.

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or a favorable review within any stated time period.

28. Special Issues and Guest Editors

Research submissions to Special Issues are subject to the same scientific standards, confidentiality requirements, conflict-of-interest controls, and independent external review procedures as comparable submissions to regular issues.

Guest Editors must disclose relevant interests and must not manage manuscripts in which they are authors or have material conflicts of interest.

Reviewer identities and independence must be verified.

The Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately authorized independent senior editor retains oversight of the Special Issue process.

Guest Editors may coordinate scientific assessment and make recommendations or decisions only within explicitly assigned authority.

Unusual patterns of invitations, reviewer relationships, unusually rapid assessments, or acceptance decisions must be examined when they raise credible integrity concerns.

Financial sponsorship or promotional arrangements must not influence scientific outcomes.

29. Manuscripts Submitted by Editors

NOIS permits submissions from its Editorial Team, provided that the manuscript is managed through an independent process without preferential treatment.

The editor who authored or co-authored the manuscript must not appoint reviewers, access confidential assessments through editorial privileges, influence deliberations, or decide the outcome.

The manuscript must be reassigned to an appropriately qualified independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

The responsible organization must ensure that the technical workflow prevents conflicted individuals from accessing or controlling the review through other administrative roles.

If suitable independence cannot be established internally, the publisher should arrange qualified external handling.

The journal must retain an internal record of the independent handling arrangements.

Editorial membership does not confer an exemption from scientific review.

30. Peer-Review Manipulation and Misconduct

NOIS prohibits fabricated reviewer identities, false contact details, impersonation, reviewer recommendation fraud, undisclosed delegation, coercive citations, unauthorized disclosure, fraudulent reports, and arrangements intended to predetermine editorial decisions.

Reviewers must not seek authorship, payment, citation advantages, or other improper benefits in exchange for favorable assessments.

Reviewers must not deliberately delay competitors' manuscripts or misuse unpublished findings.

A credible allegation of compromised peer review requires proportionate investigation and preservation of relevant evidence.

The journal may terminate an assignment, appoint replacement reviewers, repeat a compromised review, or take appropriate action under its research integrity procedures.

Where manipulation is established after publication, an independent assessment must determine whether correction, renewed scientific evaluation, an expression of concern, or retraction is justified.

A short review period or a shared affiliation is an indicator requiring context, not automatic proof of misconduct.

31. Reviewer Recognition and Confidentiality

NOIS values peer review as a scholarly contribution.

Reviewer recognition may include appropriately authorized certificates, verification of review service, or acknowledgment of editorial contributions.

Any recognition must respect the journal's double-anonymous model and applicable confidentiality requirements.

A certificate or verification record must not disclose manuscript content, author identities, reviewer reports, or unpublished editorial information without proper authorization.

Public release of review reports or identities is not part of the journal's default double-anonymous model.

Any future implementation of transparent or open review must be announced through a revised policy and supported by appropriate consent, rights, privacy, and publishing procedures.

Reviewers must not independently publish confidential reports or manuscript details.

32. Appeals, Complaints, and Integrity Concerns

Authors may raise evidence-based concerns about material scientific misunderstandings, procedural irregularities, or potential reviewer or editorial bias through the journal's published appeals procedures.

Reviewers may report suspected manipulation, conflicts of interest, or professional misconduct to the editorial office.

Complaints involving a handling editor must be referred to an appropriately independent person.

The journal considers credible anonymous reports where sufficient evidence is available.

Good-faith reporting must not result in retaliatory editorial treatment.

Where concerns indicate serious threats to the scientific record, the matter is handled under the journal's relevant research integrity and post-publication procedures.

33. Confidential Records and Quality Assurance

The journal and publisher maintain appropriate records of reviewer invitations, identity verification, relevant conflict assessments, accepted assignments, submitted reports, editorial correspondence, review rounds, and decisions.

Records must be protected from unauthorized access and retained according to the publisher's applicable privacy and records management arrangements.

The journal may review patterns in reviewer selection, turnaround times, conflicts of interest, editorial decisions, and repeated integrity concerns to identify procedural weaknesses.

Such internal audits must respect legitimate confidentiality and must not be used to manipulate reported performance.

The journal must not claim that particular reviews, identity checks, or specialist verifications occurred without documentary evidence.

The publisher is responsible for supporting the technical safeguards necessary for reliable and independent peer review.

34. Relationship to Other Journal Policies

This policy operates alongside the journal's Aims and Scope, Editorial Policies, Publication Ethics Statement, Information for Authors, Conflicts of Interest Policy, Generative AI and AI-Assisted Research Policy, Research Data, Code and Reproducibility Policy, and Complaints, Appeals and Whistleblowing Policy.

Its purpose is to define the journal's peer-review model and the professional obligations associated with independent scientific assessment.

Specific ethical investigations, corrections, retractions, copyright issues, and data protection matters are governed by the corresponding specialized policies.

Where any previously published wording conflicts with this policy, the publisher must resolve the inconsistency formally and communicate the applicable procedures clearly.

Official Journal Information and Ethical Guidance

Journal: Neutrosophic Optimization and Intelligent Systems (NOIS)

Publisher: Sciences Force LLC, United States

Peer-Review Model: Double-anonymous independent external peer review for scholarly manuscripts selected for external assessment.

Editorial Office: nois@sciencesforce.com

Research Integrity, Complaints, and Appeals: ethics_reporting@sciencesforce.com

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

Publisher's Peer Review and Editorial Process Policy: https://sciencesforce.com/publisher

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers: https://doi.org/10.24318/cope.2019.1.9

Scopus Content Policy and Selection: https://www.elsevier.com/products/scopus/content/content-policy-and-selection

Official Journal Website: https://ojs.sciencesforce.com/index.php/nois/index