Data and Information Quality (JDIQ)


Search JDIQ
enter search term and/or author name

Social Media

Information and guidelines for reviewers


Review Process

Submitted papers are evaluated using a single-blind review process for originality, relevance, and presentation. Reviewers for a paper will be kept anonymous. Note that by ACM policy, conference papers must have at least 25 percent new material, see:

The overall process is:

  1. The Editor-in-Chief or his/her designee determines if the paper is appropriate for consideration by JDIQ and, if so, assigns it to an Associate Editor.
  2. The Associate Editor also determines if it is appropriate for JDIQ consideration, and if so, selects usually three reviewers.
  3. The Reviewers read the submission and evaluate its novelty, impact, and readability, and each reviewer returns a scoring template with written comments to the Associate Editor.
  4. The Associate Editor collects the reviews and makes a recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief with his or her written opinion on the acceptability of the submission.
  5. The Editor-in-Chief, based on the reviews and Associate Editor's recommendation, makes a final, binding recommendation on the acceptability of the submission, which is communicated to the author in writing along with the Associate Editor's and Reviewers' comments.

JDIQ aims at a turn-around time of three months or less. If at any time during this process JDIQ determines a submission is inappropriate for consideration by JDIQ, the submission will be returned to the author immediately so the problem can be fixed or the submission can be sent to a more appropriate venue.

Decision Criteria

Reviewers should evaluate in a paper its relevance, originality/novelty, importance, technical soundness, and clarity. 

Submissions will be returned to the primary contact author with one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept: A submission is excellent, and there are no suggestions for improvement. The submission will appear in an upcoming issue of the ACM Journal of Data and Information Quality.
  • Minor revision: The paper should be accepted after slight revisions. The revised submission must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief along with a response to the reviewer's comments. The revision will be verified by the corresponding editor and if approved, the submission will be promoted to an accepted paper.
  • Major revision: The paper has real potential, but a large component should be redone
    and re-reviewed. A new version of the paper must be prepared together with a detailed response to the comments of each of the reviewers. The paper and response must be submitted to the Editor-in-Chief and the material will be forwarded to the editor. The revisions will be verified by the original reviewers (to the extent possible) and a decision will be made based on how well the authors responded to the reviewers' comments.
  • Resubmit: The author is encouraged to submit a significantly revised version of the manuscript, beginning a new review process.
  • Reject: The manuscript has been judged to not meet the standards required for publication in the journal and has been rejected.

JDIQ expects authors to submit revised manuscripts within two months of the decision, unless a request for an extension is granted by the Editor-in-Chief.

JDIQ is published on a quarterly basis (4 issues per year). ACM has adopted an online-first publication policy for its publications in the ACM Digital Library. Once a paper has been accepted, JDIQ will strive to put the paper in the ACM Digital Library as soon as possible, and that will be the official date of publication.

Conflicts of Interest (COI)

The COI policy for ACM JDIQ includes the following constraints:

  1. The reviewer works at the same institution as one of the authors.
  2. The reviewer has been directly involved in the work and will be receiving credit in some way. If the reviewer is a member of one of the authors’ thesis committee, and the paper is about his or her thesis work, then the reviewer is involved.
  3. The reviewer suspects that others might see a conflict of interest in their involvement.
  4. The reviewer collaborated with one of the authors in the past three (or other defined number) years. Possible collaborations include, for example, the writing of a paper or a grant proposal together.
  5. The reviewer was an advisor to, or advisee of, one of the authors.
  6. The reviewer has unpublished work that would get scooped by the current submission.

Reviewers have the responsibility to protect the confidentiality of the ideas represented in the
submitted papers.

By policy, ACM reviewers must remain anonymous to authors of a manuscript.

All ACM Journals | See Full Journal Index