Policies

Focus and Scope

ACSIE (International Journal of Application Computer Science and Informatic Engineering) is an open-access, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the publication of high-quality research in applied computer science and informatics engineering, with particular emphasis on the development and application of deep learning and intelligent systems in cultural heritage domains. The journal aims to provide a platform for innovative research that bridges theoretical advancements and real-world applications in the preservation, analysis, and interpretation of cultural heritage.

ACSIE accepts Original Research Articles and Review Articles written in English, featuring well-designed studies with clearly analyzed and logically interpreted results. A strong preference is given to research that demonstrates significant contributions to the advancement of deep learning methodologies and their impact on cultural heritage preservation, as well as their relevance to industry, science, and society.

In line with the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence, ACSIE encourages interdisciplinary research, particularly those integrating computational methods with cultural heritage studies, and does not prioritize purely incremental or repetitive studies without substantial novelty. Manuscripts must present clear innovation, methodological rigor, and practical relevance within cultural heritage applications.

Topics include:

Deep Learning and Neural Networks: Deep neural architectures, CNN, RNN, LSTM, transformers, and model optimization for cultural heritage data
Artificial Intelligence: Machine learning, intelligent systems, and decision support systems for cultural heritage applications
Computer Vision and Image Processing: Object detection, image classification, video analytics, and digital restoration of cultural artifacts and heritage sites
Natural Language Processing: Text mining, sentiment analysis, language models, and processing of historical texts and manuscripts
Data Science and Data Analytics: Big data processing, predictive analytics, and cultural data mining
Bioinformatics and Biomedical Applications: Computational approaches supporting heritage science and related analytical studies
Pattern Recognition and Biometrics: Recognition of cultural patterns, symbols, and identity-related heritage features
Multimedia and Information Retrieval: Content-based retrieval and multimedia processing for cultural heritage collections
Emerging Technologies: Augmented reality, virtual reality, and intelligent interactive systems for cultural heritage experiences
Information Systems and Applications: Digital heritage systems, smart applications, and mobile computing for heritage management

Section Policies

Articles

☑ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☑ Peer Reviewed

This section publishes original research articles and review papers in the field of application computer science and informatic engineering, with particular emphasis on deep learning and artificial intelligence. All submitted manuscripts must demonstrate novelty, methodological rigor, and relevance to the journal’s scope. Articles undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure academic quality and integrity.

Review Articles

☑ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☑ Peer Reviewed

This section is dedicated to comprehensive review papers that critically analyze recent developments in computer science, especially in deep learning, artificial intelligence, and emerging technologies. Review articles should provide significant insights, identify research gaps, and propose future research directions.

Corrigendum

☑ Open Submissions ☑ Indexed ☐ Peer Reviewed

This section publishes corrections or updates to previously published articles. The purpose is to address errors that do not significantly affect the results or conclusions of the original work. All corrigenda are assigned a DOI and are indexed accordingly.

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to ACSIE (International Journal of Application Computer Science and Informatic Engineering) undergo a rigorous screening and review process to ensure that they align with the journal’s scope and demonstrate sufficient academic quality, originality, and technical contribution. ACSIE employs a double-blind peer review system, in which both the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other.

Initial screening.

A newly submitted manuscript will be screened by the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team to evaluate its conformity with ACSIE’s scope, formatting requirements, and basic submission standards. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria will be rejected without further review.

Peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening will be assigned to a handling editor, who will forward the manuscript to at least two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. The review process follows a double-blind system to ensure objectivity and fairness. Manuscripts that fail to meet the journal’s standards at this stage may be rejected.

First decision.

A decision on a manuscript will be made after receiving at least two review reports. If there are significant discrepancies between reviewers’ evaluations, the handling editor may invite an additional reviewer to provide a third opinion. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the manuscript may be:

rejected,
accepted without revision,
accepted with minor or major revisions, or
recommended for resubmission following substantial revision.

If accepted, the manuscript will be returned to the author(s) for final formatting. The final acceptance decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the handling editor’s recommendation and editorial board consideration.

Revision stage.

Manuscripts requiring revision will be returned to the corresponding author, who will be given a specified period (typically up to three weeks) to revise the manuscript. The revised version will be evaluated by the handling editor to assess whether the authors have adequately addressed the reviewers’ comments. If necessary, the manuscript may undergo additional rounds of revision.

Final decision.

At this stage, the manuscript will be either accepted or rejected. The decision depends on whether the revised manuscript meets ACSIE’s standards for publication. Manuscripts that fail to demonstrate sufficient improvement or do not adequately address reviewers’ feedback will be rejected.

Publication Frequency

ACSIE (International Journal of Application Computer Science and Informatic Engineering) is published two times a year, in May and November, through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) platform.

Open Access Policy

ACSIE provides immediate open access to its published articles, ensuring that all content is freely available without charge to users or institutions. Authors retain the copyright of their work and are permitted to deposit their articles in any repository at any time.

All articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. This allows users to copy, distribute, and adapt the work for any purpose, provided that appropriate credit is given to the author(s) and ACSIE, and any changes made are clearly indicated.

Archiving

This journal utilizes the PKP-PN LOCKSS system to create a distributed archiving system among participating libraries. This system ensures long-term preservation and provides permanent access to journal content for purposes of preservation and restoration.

Screening for Plagiarism

Manuscripts submitted to ACSIE will be screened for plagiarism using reliable similarity detection tools such as Turnitin. Manuscripts found to contain a significant level of plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, will be rejected without further consideration.

Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement

ACSIE is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and takes all possible measures against publication malpractice. The journal promotes integrity, transparency, and ethical behavior in all stages of the publication process.

Scientific publishing relies on trust among all participants. Editors trust reviewers to provide fair, confidential, and objective evaluations. Authors trust editors to ensure a fair review process, and readers trust the credibility of published research.

ACSIE enforces a rigorous editorial process to ensure ethical compliance, including:

Maintaining confidentiality in the peer-review process
Preventing conflicts of interest
Ensuring originality and proper citation practices
Taking appropriate action in cases of ethical misconduct

Strong editorial policies and ethical standards are essential to maintaining the quality and credibility of scientific publications, benefiting authors, reviewers, researchers, institutions, and the broader academic community.

Duties of Authors

Reporting Standards

Authors should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. The underlying data must be represented accurately in the manuscript. A paper should contain sufficient detail and references to allow others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review and professional articles must also be accurate and objective, and editorial opinion should be clearly identified as such.

Data Access and Retention

Authors may be required to provide raw data related to their manuscript for editorial review and should be prepared to provide public access to such data where feasible. Authors should retain such data for a reasonable period after publication.

Originality and Plagiarism

Authors must ensure that their work is entirely original. If the work or words of others are used, proper citation or quotation must be provided. Plagiarism in all its forms, including self-plagiarism, constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.

Multiple, Redundant, or Concurrent Publication

Authors should not submit the same manuscript to more than one journal simultaneously. Publishing the same research in multiple journals without proper justification is considered unethical. Secondary publication may be acceptable under certain conditions, provided that proper acknowledgment of the original publication is clearly stated and agreed upon by all parties involved.

Acknowledgment of Sources

Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite all relevant publications that have influenced their work. Information obtained through private communication must not be used without explicit written permission from the source.

Authorship of the Paper

Authorship should be limited to individuals who have made significant contributions to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the study. All contributors who meet these criteria should be listed as co-authors. The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all co-authors approve the final version of the manuscript and agree to its submission.

Hazards and Human or Animal Subjects

If the research involves hazardous materials, procedures, or equipment, these must be clearly identified in the manuscript. For studies involving human or animal subjects, authors must confirm that all procedures comply with relevant regulations and institutional guidelines, and that appropriate ethical approvals have been obtained. Informed consent must be obtained for research involving human participants.

Disclosure and Conflicts of Interest

Authors must disclose any financial or other conflicts of interest that could influence the results or interpretation of their work. All sources of funding must be clearly stated in the manuscript.

Fundamental Errors in Published Works

If an author discovers a significant error in a published work, it is their responsibility to promptly notify the editor and cooperate in correcting or retracting the paper. If a third party identifies an error, the author must provide clarification or correction as required.

Duties of Editors

Editors of ACSIE (International Journal of Application Computer Science and Informatic Engineering) are responsible for deciding which submitted manuscripts should be published. Editorial decisions are guided by the journal’s policies, the recommendations of reviewers, and must comply with applicable legal requirements concerning defamation, copyright infringement, and plagiarism.

Editors evaluate manuscripts based solely on their academic merit, originality, clarity, and relevance to the journal’s scope, without discrimination regarding race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political affiliation of the authors.

Editors and editorial staff must ensure the confidentiality of all submitted manuscripts. Information regarding a manuscript must not be disclosed to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers, editorial board members, and the publisher, as appropriate.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a submitted manuscript must not be used in an editor’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Editors must not use privileged information or ideas obtained through the peer-review process for personal advantage and must handle all manuscripts in a fair and ethical manner.

Duties of Reviewers

Peer review plays a crucial role in assisting editors in making editorial decisions and in improving the quality of manuscripts.

Reviewers should evaluate manuscripts objectively and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. All comments should be clearly expressed and supported by logical arguments.

Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript or is unable to provide a timely review should notify the editor promptly and withdraw from the review process.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shared, discussed, or disclosed to others without authorization from the editor.

Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any claim that an observation, method, or result has been previously reported should be supported by appropriate references.

Reviewers are also responsible for alerting the editor to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under review and other published works of which they are aware.

Unpublished materials disclosed in a manuscript must not be used in a reviewer’s own research without the explicit written consent of the author. Confidential information obtained through peer review must not be used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should decline to review manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest arising from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships with any of the authors, institutions, or organizations associated with the manuscript.

Reviewer Guidelines

All manuscripts submitted to ACSIE (International Journal of Application Computer Science and Informatic Engineering) undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure that they align with the journal’s scope and meet high standards of academic quality, originality, and technical contribution. As a reviewer, you are expected to uphold these standards throughout the evaluation process.

These guidelines are intended to clarify your responsibilities as a reviewer, outline your ethical obligations, and provide direction on how to evaluate a manuscript effectively and consistently. All submissions should be assessed objectively and fairly, ensuring that every manuscript is evaluated on equal terms.

Your Responsibilities as a Reviewer

As a reviewer, you are responsible for carefully reading the manuscript and evaluating its suitability for publication in ACSIE based on its scientific merit, originality, clarity, and relevance.

You are expected to provide feedback that is:

Constructive — helping authors improve their work
Objective and impartial — free from personal bias
Clear and unambiguous — easy for authors to understand
Honest and evidence-based — supported by logical reasoning

ACSIE is committed to supporting the development of researchers at all levels. Therefore, reviewer comments should be professional and respectful. Criticism should focus on the content of the manuscript and should not discourage authors from improving and resubmitting their work.

Things to Consider Before Accepting a Review

Before agreeing to review a manuscript, reviewers should ensure the following:

Expertise

The manuscript falls within your area of expertise. Reviewers should assess the abstract and keywords to confirm alignment with their knowledge and experience.

Availability and Timeliness

You are able to complete the review within the designated timeframe (typically within three weeks) and can dedicate sufficient time to provide a thorough and meaningful evaluation. If you are unable to meet the deadline, you should inform the editor promptly and, if possible, suggest an alternative reviewer.

Conflict of Interest

You must ensure that there is no conflict of interest that could affect your objectivity. If a conflict exists—whether personal, professional, or financial—you should decline the review request. If a conflict becomes apparent after accepting the review, you must notify the editor immediately and withdraw from the review process.

Reviewer Ethics

ACSIE relies on the impartiality and discretion of reviewers, and as a reviewer, you are entrusted with confidential material meant solely for critical evaluation. As such, we expect you to treat all documents and correspondence related to the review with the appropriate level of care.

Do not use any of the information therein for the advancement of your own research or to discredit another party.
Do not discuss any aspect of the manuscript with a third party.
Ensure that the information therein and details of the review process remain confidential before, during, and after publication.
Maintain the integrity of the double-blind review process. Do not under any circumstances contact any of the authors to discuss their manuscript.
Be fair, honest, and objective in your evaluation of the manuscript.
Declare a conflict of interest, and recuse yourself immediately if you believe your impartiality has been compromised.

Conducting the Review

ACSIE's Review Procedure

ACSIE uses an online submission and peer review system. When a reviewer is requested to review a paper submitted to ACSIE, they will have a journal account created for them, through which they will be able to read the abstract and decide on whether to agree to review it.

If you have been requested to review a paper, simply log into your reviewer account, read the provided abstract, and indicate whether you agree to review it. If you decline to review the manuscript, please include the reason why, and if possible, suggest an alternate reviewer from a similar field.

To ensure the integrity of the peer-review process, all further correspondence will be through this system, with the reviewer being given access to the full manuscript and provided with a review page to fill out and submit. If you wish, you can also provide comments directly on the manuscript file, but be sure that all comments are made anonymously and focus on the content of the article, not its layout or formatting.

Basic Criteria

A good review looks at both the overall quality of the manuscript and the accuracy and precision of its details. The former is informed by the latter. When evaluating a manuscript for ACSIE, look at the following aspects:

Scope: Is the manuscript within ACSIE's scope? How interesting will the article be to the journal's readership?
Novelty of the research: Is the article sufficiently novel and interesting? Does it add new knowledge? How original is the research?
Appropriateness of the title: Does the title accurately represent the content?
Content quality: Does the article adhere to ACSIE's standards? Is the research question an important one? Does the manuscript help to expand or further current research in its respective field?
Methodology: Is the description of the methodology informative, clear, and concise? Is the methodology of the research precise and properly conducted? How appropriate is the approach or experimental design?
Significance of the results: Do the results have significant implications for computer science, deep learning, artificial intelligence, and/or society?
Appropriateness of tables, figures, and/or supplemental material: Is every figure/table necessary and correctly described? Is the supplementary material appropriate for the content?
Completeness of the data: How complete are the data?
Relevance of the discussion: Is the discussion relevant to the results and rest of the content? Have the authors appropriately discussed their results in the context of previous research?
Appropriateness of citations/references: Are all citations accounted for? Is there an appropriate amount of citations for the content (neither too few nor too many)?
Clarity of the content: How good is the English? Will ACSIE's readership have trouble understanding the content?
Adherence to ACSIE's guidelines: Does the manuscript adhere to the journal's guidelines, such as the structure of the manuscript? Have tables and figures been submitted separately?
Adherence to correct scientific nomenclature: Are technical terms used correctly and consistently?

Ethical Considerations

In addition to the above criteria, also pay attention to whether the manuscript contains instances of plagiarism, improper referencing, re-publication, or fraud. Things to look for:

Plagiarism: Observe whether a portion of the manuscript has been copied from another work without giving appropriate credit. For example, text has been copied verbatim without a clear indication that it is a quote, text has been copied but not cited (suggesting that these are the authors' own words/ideas), or some portion of the text has been copied without the permission of the original author. If you find that a significant part of the manuscript has been plagiarized, please contact the editor as soon as possible so we can take the appropriate actions.
Missing, incorrect, or incomplete references: All text, figures, tables, data, ideas, or concepts that have been published previously should be cited. It is considered plagiarism for an author to present something as their own even though it is not, regardless of their intent.
Re-publication: It is against ACSIE's policy to publish work that has already been published elsewhere. Please notify the editor if you find an instance of a manuscript having been published previously (partially or fully).
Fraud: Any part of the manuscript that is found to be untrue should be highlighted as such. Any form of data manipulation or tampering should be brought to the editor's attention.

Publication ethics is not limited to these four items. If you believe the authors have attempted to mislead readers, infringed upon a copyright or patent, or might jeopardize the integrity of the journal in any other way, please contact the handling editor.

The ACSIE Review Form

Once you have gathered enough information to make a decision on the manuscript, log into your ACSIE account to complete the review. At minimum, you will be required to grade the manuscript based on the aforementioned criteria, as well as to summarize your major findings and give your overall impression of the article. Although it is only optional, we highly encourage you to also take the opportunity to comment on the manuscript in more detail, and provide specific suggestions that might improve any aspect of it.

If you have made specific comments in the manuscript file, remember to anonymize them to prevent the authors from being able to identify you.

Making Good Comments

It's important to ensure that all comments are constructive and intended to better the quality of the manuscript or otherwise help the authors understand where they went wrong. Please reconsider making comments that fall out of this purview.

Follow good commenting practices. For example:

Do not comment on the acceptability of the manuscript, and avoid suggesting revisions as conditions for acceptance.
Provide detailed, unambiguous comments.
Be respectful and positive. Your goal should be to help the authors improve their article, by providing constructive criticism and helpful suggestions.
Highlight areas that need clarification or should be elaborated further by the authors.
Make suggestions on how the authors can improve problematic passages.
You are not required to edit the authors’ style or grammar, but any improvement to clarity is appreciated.
Highlight consistent instances of incorrect or outdated technical terminology.
Avoid making unsupported or dogmatic statements.
Take care not to dismiss the manuscript without proper justification.

Recommendations

Your final task as a reviewer is to provide a recommendation regarding the manuscript, which may include acceptance without revision, acceptance with minor revisions, acceptance with major revisions, acceptance with major revisions requiring re-review, rejection with encouragement to resubmit after substantial improvement, or outright rejection. If the manuscript is recommended for rejection, the reviewer should clearly explain the reasons for this decision. Each recommendation must be supported by a thorough and objective evaluation, accompanied by constructive feedback. Reviewers should be aware that they are part of a multi-reviewer process, and their recommendation may differ from those of other reviewers. The final decision regarding the manuscript is made by the editorial board, taking into account all reviewer comments and recommendations, and may not necessarily reflect a single reviewer’s opinion.