Peer Review Policy

(In alignment with the Publisher’s Peer Review Standards (COPE))

The Journal of ICT, Design, Engineering and Technological Science (JITDETS) adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer review model to uphold the quality, integrity, and scholarly impact of the manuscripts it publishes. This process ensures that each article aligns with the journal’s aims and scope while meeting the highest academic standards in research and analysis.

Review Process

All submissions undergo the following structured review process:

    1. Initial Screening
      The Editor-in-Chief conducts a preliminary evaluation to determine whether the manuscript aligns
      with the journal's thematic scope and meets baseline quality standards.
    2. Plagiarism Detection
      Manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection software. Any submission with a similarity index exceeding 20% or flagged for ethical concerns is subject to immediate rejection, with authors duly informed.
    3. Reviewer Assignment
      Manuscripts passing the initial checks are assigned to at least two independent reviewers, selected based on their expertise. Additional evaluations may be conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors when necessary to ensure academic rigor.
    4. Review Criteria
      Reviewers assess submissions based on:
      • Relevance to the journal’s scope
      • Originality and significance of the contribution
      • Methodological soundness and analytical quality
      • Clarity of presentation and academic integrity
  1. Editorial Decision
    Based on reviewers’ evaluations and scores provided via a structured Review Form, the Editor-inChief makes the final decision: acceptance, minor/major revisions, or rejection. Constructive feedback is provided to authors regardless of the outcome.
  2. Production Stage
    Once accepted, manuscripts move to production for formatting, proofreading, and publication preparation—typically within 30 days.

Reviewer Selection and Ethics

JITDETS maintains a regularly updated database of external reviewers with expertise across a range of disciplines in research, innovation, and technology. Reviewer profiles include qualifications, areas of specialization, and previous review performance, ensuring optimal alignment with the manuscript topic. For manuscripts involving niche or interdisciplinary topics, JITDETS may also solicit reviews from domain experts outside its core reviewer pool to ensure comprehensive evaluation.

Ethical Responsibilities

JITDETS expects all parties involved in the peer review process—editors, reviewers, and editorial staff— to adhere to its Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement as well as COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Ethical conduct includes, but is not limited to:

  • Maintaining strict confidentiality of manuscripts
  • Providing objective and timely reviews
  • Disclosing any actual or potential conflicts of interest
  • Reporting suspected ethical misconduct to the editorial office

Confidentiality and Anonymity

All manuscripts submitted to JITDETS are treated as confidential. Under the double-blind model, both author and reviewer identities remain anonymous throughout the review process, ensuring an unbiased evaluation based solely on scholarly merit.

Conflict of Interest

To promote fairness and transparency:

  • Reviewers are required to disclose any personal, professional, or financial conflicts of interest.
  • Editors must recuse themselves from handling manuscripts where a conflict exists, including submissions from authors affiliated with the same institution.
  • In such cases, manuscripts will be reassigned to another editorial member who is unaffiliated with the submitting party.
  • Reviewers from the same institutions as the authors are generally not invited to review. If a reviewer suspects the identity of the author, they are expected to decline the review.

Reviewer Guidelines and Resources

Reviewers are provided with a detailed Review Form and evaluation criteria prior to accepting review invitations. In addition, reviewers are encouraged to consult the following resources to guide their assessments:

Submission by Editors and Editorial Board Members

Submissions from editors or editorial board members are managed by an independent editor from a different institution to avoid any conflict of interest. The designated editor oversees the entire review and decision-making process, and any editor with a conflict is barred from accessing the manuscript or participating in discussions related to it.

Author Guidance and Feedback

Authors are strongly encouraged to consult the Review Form available on the journal’s submission platform to understand the evaluation parameters. When revisions are required, detailed and constructive comments from the reviewers and editors are provided to assist authors in improving the quality of their work.

Reviewers are notified of the final editorial decision and are informed if a revised manuscript will be returned for a second evaluation. Minor revisions may be reviewed solely by the editorial team.

Policy Review and Timelines

JITDETS regularly updates its peer review policies to align with international best practices. The current policy was last revised in January 2025.

Expected Timeline:

  • Initial Screening & Plagiarism Check: Within 10 days of submission
  • Peer Review Process: Typically completed within 30–45 days
  • Production (post-acceptance): Up to 30 days

Authors are encouraged to maintain communication with the editorial office regarding their manuscript status and timelines.