ATISR Reviewers’ Handbook – Scoring Criteria and Evaluation Model

Every credible academic journal relies on a structured process to evaluate submissions, and the Academy of Taiwan Information Systems Research (ATISR) is no different. For those involved in reviewing or submitting research, understanding how ATISR conducts evaluations is essential. The Reviewers’ Handbook outlines the scoring criteria and the evaluation model in a clear and methodical way. Here’s a breakdown of how it works.

Framework

ATISR uses a structured evaluation model designed to ensure transparency and fairness in the review process. Each submission is assessed across a set of key dimensions that reflect both academic rigor and thematic relevance. The goal is not just to judge the outcome, but also to evaluate how clearly and systematically the research has been conducted.

Reviewers follow defined criteria instead of making subjective decisions. This system provides the editorial team with consistent feedback that informs acceptance, revision, or rejection decisions.

Criteria

The ATISR evaluation model typically includes five to six core criteria:

1. Originality – Does the research present new ideas, methods, or approaches?
2. Significance – Is the work impactful or meaningful in its field?
3. Technical Quality – Are the research methods sound and appropriate?
4. Clarity – Is the writing clear and logically structured?
5. Relevance – Does the topic align with the journal or conference themes?
6. References – Are the cited sources up-to-date, credible, and relevant?

Each criterion is rated on a numerical scale, most commonly from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent), although broader scales such as 1 to 7 or 1 to 10 may also be used in some contexts.

Scoring

Reviewers assign scores to each criterion. These are then used to calculate a weighted or average score, which reflects the overall assessment of the submission.

Below is an example of how the scoring may be structured:

Criteria	Weight (%)	Score (1-5)	Weighted Score
Originality	20%	4	0.8
Significance	20%	5	1.0
Technical Quality	25%	3	0.75
Clarity	15%	4	0.6
Relevance	10%	5	0.5
References	10%	3	0.3
Total	100%		3.95

A final score such as 3.95 provides a basis for determining whether the paper meets the journal’s publication standards.

Decision

The evaluation model includes a score-based decision system. This helps standardize outcomes and ensures authors understand where their submission stands.

Final Score	Editorial Decision
4.5 – 5.0	Accept
4.0 – 4.49	Minor Revision
3.0 – 3.99	Major Revision
Below 3.0	Reject

This classification helps editors interpret reviewer input in a structured manner. Reviewers are encouraged to align their comments with the score range they assign.

Feedback

Quantitative scoring is supplemented with qualitative feedback. Reviewers are expected to explain their assessments clearly, offering constructive suggestions to improve the paper. This approach promotes academic development rather than simply screening submissions.

Even in cases of rejection, detailed feedback helps authors refine their work for future submission.

Ethics

ATISR enforces ethical standards throughout the review process. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality. Evaluations should be based solely on academic merit, with personal biases avoided.

This ethical framework supports the credibility and fairness of the review process.

Tools

To facilitate evaluations, reviewers are provided with templates or digital forms that reflect the scoring model. These tools help maintain consistency and allow editors to compare multiple reviews efficiently.

Some systems include checks that highlight inconsistencies – for example, if a reviewer gives a low score but writes a highly positive review. This improves the reliability of the review process.

The ATISR Reviewers’ Handbook provides a detailed and standardized framework for academic evaluations. By using specific scoring criteria, weighted values, and requiring thoughtful feedback, ATISR upholds a fair and ethical peer-review model. Whether you are submitting a paper or conducting a review, understanding this model is essential for active participation in scholarly publishing.

FAQs