Peer Review Process

The Journal of Information Technology Management (JITM) adopts a double-blind review process where both the referee and the author remain anonymous throughout the process, which is carefully monitored by the editor. The terms and conditions of the peer review process are based on the guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

 

Peer Review Process

After submitting the paper to the author by the system, the paper will be primarily studied based on publishing experts (maximum a week). (Please study the guideline of authors carefully to expedite set up the paper as precise as codification guidelines in the system and then submit). If it is accepted in the first stage, the paper will be assessed by the editor.

A weekly email will be submitted to the reviewers and the paper will be given back due to lack of paper review after one month, then it will be sent to another reviewer. Based on the requested modifications level, the viewpoints of reviewers, the accuracy and speed of the modifications done by authors, being accepted in this publication takes about one year ( in case of final approval by reviewers). Secretary specialist and scientific committee based on relevant content and subject. This stage will usually take two months. After third phase acceptance, the paper will be sent to two reviewers, then the review process of the paper is as follows:

  •   If two reviewers reject a paper, it will be disapproved
  •   If the opinion of two reviews is a total revision of the paper, the paper will be submitted to the author for revision
  •   If a reviewer`s opinion is the general revision and the second one rejects the paper, the essay will be submitted to the third reviewer and according to his idea relevant to the first and second item, the decision will be made.
  •  When the author modified the paper and submitted it, the paper would be given to another reviewer for comparative assessment.

 

Reviewers are asked to evaluate a manuscript for

  • Originality and significance of the contribution
  • Interest to social scientists and/or practitioners
  • International relevance
  • Coverage of appropriate existing literature
  • Adequacy of methodology, analysis, and interpretation
  • Clear, concise, and jargon-free writing style
  • Organization

 

Acceptance Criteria

  • Valid research question and hypothesis, with a relevant theory to which the research question is being posed
  • Applies correct and transparent methodology, and the study design and materials are clearly laid out
  • Language and presentation are clear and adequate, figures and tables are in line with scientific norms and standards
  • In line with the journal's author guidelines on editorial and ethical policies
  • Determined by grounding in existing literature through sufficient referencing and appropriate coverage of the relevant literature.

 

Rejection Criteria

A submission may be rejected at any stage during initial validation, peer review, or final validation for the following reasons:

  • The manuscript does not have a valid research question or hypothesis.
  • There are clear objective errors in the methodology of the study design, data collection, or analysis.
  • The manuscript does not conform to our editorial policies as it is not original, is plagiarized, or is a duplication of previous work.
  • The language and presentation of the manuscript are not of sufficient quality for a rigorous and efficient peer review to take place.
  • The study violates our ethical policies by not complying with privacy protection guidelines, ethical review board approval guidelines, and internationally recognized standards for research involving humans or animals.
  • The authors have not adhered to our authorship guidelines or have fabricated, falsified data, or manipulated images and figures in a deceitful manner.
  • The references are clearly biased (geographical, self-citation, school of thought) and do not reflect the current status of knowledge in the field.
  • Based on biased or faulty analyses, the study’s conclusions are misleading.
  • The study investigates a pseudoscientific research question.