Peer Review Policy

Introduction:

The International Journal of Technology Management and Science (IJTMS) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review, ensuring that all submitted manuscripts undergo a rigorous evaluation process. Our peer review policy is designed to uphold the integrity, quality, and transparency of the research we publish, fostering an environment that supports innovation and collaboration across the fields of technology and science.

Innovative and Effective Peer Review Policy for IJTMS

Building upon the strengths of both the IJMTS and Scopus policies, we propose the following peer review policy for IJTMS:

Submission Process

  1. Online Submission: Manuscripts should be submitted through our secure online submission portal to ensure a streamlined and efficient process. Submissions via email are not accepted.

  2. Initial Screening: The Managing Editorial Team conducts an initial assessment of submissions, checking for adherence to journal scope, formatting, and ethical guidelines.

  3. Plagiarism Check: All submissions are checked using advanced plagiarism detection software. Manuscripts with a similarity index above 10% are returned to the authors for revision or rejection.

Review Process

  1. Double-Blind Review: IJTMS employs a double-blind peer review process, ensuring the anonymity of both authors and reviewers to maintain objectivity and impartiality.

  2. Expert Reviewer Matching: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and track record in the relevant field. Our dynamic database is regularly updated to ensure accurate matching.

  3. Review Criteria: Manuscripts are evaluated on the following criteria:

    • Originality and Novelty: Contribution to the field and innovation of ideas.
    • Methodological Rigor: Soundness and robustness of the research methodology.
    • Clarity and Organization: Structure, coherence, and clarity of the manuscript.
    • Ethical Standards: Adherence to ethical guidelines in research and publication.
    • Relevance and Impact: Potential impact and relevance to the field and beyond.

  4. Feedback and Recommendations: Reviewers provide constructive feedback and make recommendations for the manuscript, which may include:

    • Accept Without Changes: The manuscript is ready for publication.
    • Minor Revisions: Requires minor amendments before acceptance.
    • Major Revisions: Requires substantial changes and a second review.
    • Reject: Does not meet the journal's standards for publication.

Editorial Decision

  1. Associate Editor Role: The Associate Editor oversees the review process, synthesizing feedback from reviewers and making an initial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

  2. Editor-in-Chief Decision: The Editor-in-Chief reviews all recommendations and makes the final decision on acceptance, revision, or rejection. The decision is communicated to the authors with detailed feedback.

  3. Rapid Review Pathway: To expedite the publication of high-impact research, IJTMS offers a rapid review pathway for submissions deemed groundbreaking by the Editor-in-Chief. This pathway includes expedited review and decision timelines.

Confidentiality and Ethical Standards

  1. Confidentiality: All submissions and reviews are treated confidentially. IJTMS is committed to protecting the identities of reviewers and authors throughout the review process.

  2. Ethical Compliance: IJTMS follows COPE guidelines and requires all parties involved in the review process to disclose conflicts of interest.

  3. Reviewer Honorarium: To recognize the valuable contribution of reviewers, IJTMS offers a modest honorarium and access to journal content for a specified period.

Continuous Improvement

  1. Reviewer Feedback Loop: IJTMS solicits feedback from reviewers and authors to continuously improve the review process, incorporating best practices and innovative approaches.

  2. Training and Development: IJTMS offers training programs and workshops for reviewers and editors to enhance their skills and understanding of emerging trends in peer review.