Role of reviewers

Peer review is essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of Informatica. Reviewers help:

• authors, by providing constructive, specific suggestions to improve clarity, correctness, and presentation; and
• editors, by assessing the work’s originality, technical soundness, significance, and suitability for the journal’s scope.

Reviews should be written so they are broadly comprehensible to readers with an engineering/scientific background, while still containing enough technical detail to support a clear editorial decision.

Peer review model and anonymity

Informatica uses single-blind peer review: reviewers can see the authors’ identities, while reviewer identities are not disclosed to authors. (Editors may share anonymous review reports and anonymous in-text comments with authors.)

1) Before you accept a review request

1.1 Check expertise and availability

Accept a review only if you have adequate expertise and can submit your report within the requested timeframe. If you can review but need additional time, contact the handling editor as soon as possible.

1.2 Declare conflicts of interest

Decline the review (or consult the editor) if you have any conflict of interest, such as:

• recent collaboration with the authors,
• being at the same institution (current or very recent),
• financial/personal relationships that could bias your judgment,
• direct competition (e.g., closely overlapping unpublished work).

(If unsure, disclose the situation to the editor and follow their guidance.)

1.3 Maintain confidentiality

The manuscript and associated materials are confidential:

• Do not share them with colleagues/students without the editor’s permission.
• Do not use ideas/data from the submission for personal advantage.
• Do not discuss the work publicly before publication.

 

2) What to evaluate

2.1 Fit and contribution

Assess whether the manuscript fits the journal’s scope and makes a meaningful contribution in computer science/informatics (e.g., a new method/algorithm, a defensible improvement, a novel system, or a rigorous evaluation).

2.2 Technical correctness and rigor

Comment on:

• correctness of claims and proofs (if applicable),
• appropriateness of methodology and experimental design,
• adequacy of baselines, ablations, and statistical treatment (where relevant),
• validity of conclusions relative to the evidence.

2.3 Novelty and significance

Is the work clearly differentiated from prior art? Is the contribution important enough for publication in a peer-reviewed venue?

2.4 Reproducibility and transparency

Where applicable, check whether the paper provides enough detail to reproduce results:

• data description and availability (or justified restrictions),
• code/model availability (or clear implementation details),
• parameter settings, hardware/software environment,
• clear evaluation protocol.
  
  

2.5 Presentation quality

Assess clarity, structure, and whether figures/tables support the claims. Provide specific suggestions for improving readability (including English usage) without rewriting the paper.

2.6 References and attribution

• Identify missing key references that are genuinely necessary.
• Avoid requesting citations primarily to increase citations to yourself or any venue (“coercive citation”). Suggestions should be relevant and justified.

 

3) How to write a helpful review

A strong review is specific and actionable. We recommend structuring your report as:

1. Summary (3–6 sentences): what the paper claims and what you believe it contributes.
2. Strengths: key positives.
3. Major issues: items that must be addressed for publication (technical flaws, missing baselines, unclear methodology, unsupported claims).
4. Minor issues: smaller corrections (clarity, typos, formatting, minor references).
5. Recommendation to the editor: accept / minor / major / reject, with a short rationale.

Comments to authors vs. confidential notes to editors

• Comments to authors should be constructive, professional, and written as if they will be acted on.
• Confidential comments to the editor (if your system supports it) can include sensitive concerns (e.g., suspected plagiarism, ethics issues, or why a flaw is fatal).

 

4) Research integrity and ethics concerns

Please alert the editor if you suspect:

• plagiarism or redundant publication,
• fabricated/falsified results or manipulated figures,
• unethical data collection (e.g., human-subject issues),
• authorship or conflict-of-interest concerns,
• paper-mill indicators or peer-review manipulation.

(Do not contact the authors directly about misconduct concerns.)

5) Use of automated or AI-assisted tools

5.1 Confidentiality comes first

Do not upload manuscripts (or substantial parts of them) into external tools that may store, reuse, or disclose content (including many generative AI/LLM services). This may violate author confidentiality.

5.2 Permitted use (review writing support)

You may use tools to help improve the language and readability of your review report, provided that you remove any identifying/confidential details before using third-party tools and you remain fully responsible for the review’s content and judgment.

If you are unsure whether a tool is acceptable under confidentiality requirements, do not use it.

6) Timeliness and communication

• Submit your review by the deadline whenever possible.
• If unexpected delays occur, inform the editor promptly so they can manage the process.

 

7) Recognition and receipts

Reviewers can request a review certificate/receipt from the editorial office for completed reviews.

8) Questions

If you have questions about scope, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or how to handle an ethics concern, contact the handling editor or the editorial office.