Peer Review Process

The Journal of Computer Networks, Architecture and High Performance Computing (CNAPC) applies a double-blind peer review process, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process.

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review. At this stage, the editorial team evaluates the manuscript's relevance to the journal's scope, scientific quality, originality, compliance with the author guidelines, ethical requirements, and overall presentation. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic editorial or scientific standards may be rejected without external review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are normally assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific and technical quality, originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, validity of the results and conclusions, significance of the contribution, and relevance to the scope of CNAPC.

Based on the reviewers' reports, the editorial decision may be acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection. When revisions are requested, authors are expected to address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and provide a clear point-by-point response explaining the changes made to the manuscript. Authors may respectfully disagree with a reviewer comment provided that a clear academic justification is given.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the handling editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary, particularly when reviewer reports are substantially conflicting or additional expertise is required.

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor based on the reviewers' recommendations, the authors' responses, and the manuscript's compliance with the journal's scientific and editorial standards. Acceptance is not determined solely by reviewer recommendations, and the editorial team retains responsibility for the final publication decision.

CNAPC seeks to conduct the review process efficiently while maintaining the quality and independence of peer review. The first editorial decision is generally expected within 4–8 weeks, although the review period may vary depending on reviewer availability, the complexity of the manuscript, and the number of revision rounds required. The entire submission and peer review process is conducted electronically through the journal's online submission system.

Submission and Peer Review Workflow

  1. Manuscript Submission — The author submits the manuscript and required metadata through the CNAPC online submission system in accordance with the Author Guidelines.
  2. Initial Editorial Screening — The editorial team checks the manuscript's scope, format, originality, scientific merit, ethical compliance, and adherence to journal requirements.
  3. Reviewer Assignment — Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
  4. Double-Blind Peer Review — Reviewers independently evaluate the manuscript and submit their recommendations and comments to the editorial office.
  5. Editorial Decision — Based on the reviewers' reports, the editor may issue a decision of accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject.
  6. Author Revision — Authors revise the manuscript and submit a point-by-point response to the reviewers' and editor's comments.
  7. Re-evaluation — The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the handling editor and/or returned to the reviewers for further assessment.
  8. Final Decision — The Editor-in-Chief or designated editor makes the final decision regarding acceptance or rejection.
  9. Production and Proofreading — Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, layout, and author proofreading before publication.
  10. Publication — Following final approval of the proof, the article is published according to the journal's publication schedule.