Peer Review Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Information Technology and Information Systems Management (JITISM) undergo an editorial screening and peer review process to ensure the quality, relevance, originality, and academic contribution of the manuscript.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the manuscript is initially evaluated by the editorial team. This stage is intended to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further review.

The initial screening may consider:

Relevance to the focus and scope of JITISM;
Compliance with the journal's submission and manuscript requirements;
Originality and similarity of the manuscript;
Clarity and quality of the manuscript;
Appropriateness of the research methods and scholarly presentation; and
Compliance with publication ethics.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or declined without proceeding to external peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening will be assigned to reviewers with relevant expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewer selection is managed by the editorial team while considering academic expertise and potential conflicts of interest.

3. Peer Review

JITISM applies a peer review process in which reviewers evaluate the academic quality of submitted manuscripts and provide recommendations to the editor. The review process is intended to assist the editor in making an editorial decision and to help authors improve their manuscripts.

Reviewers may evaluate aspects including:

Originality and contribution of the research;
Relevance to the field of information technology and information systems management;
Clarity of the research objectives or questions;
Appropriateness of the research methodology;
Quality of data analysis and discussion;
Validity and clarity of the conclusions;
Relevance and adequacy of references; and
Overall quality and organization of the manuscript.

4. Reviewer Recommendation

After evaluating the manuscript, reviewers provide comments and recommendations to the editor. Depending on the evaluation, a manuscript may require revision before it can be considered for publication.

Recommendations may include:

Accept submission;
Revisions required;
Resubmit for review; or
Decline submission.

5. Author Revision

When revisions are requested, authors are expected to revise the manuscript based on the reviewers' and editor's comments. Authors should provide an appropriate response to the comments and clearly indicate the revisions made to the manuscript.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the reviewers for further evaluation when necessary.

6. Editorial Decision

The final editorial decision is made by the editor after considering the manuscript, reviewer reports, author revisions, and compliance with the journal's editorial requirements.

The editor is responsible for determining whether a manuscript is accepted, requires further revision, should be resubmitted for additional review, or is declined.

7. Copyediting and Production

Accepted manuscripts proceed to the editorial production process, which may include copyediting, layout preparation, proofreading, and final publication. Authors may be asked to review the final version of their article before publication.

Confidentiality

Manuscripts and information obtained during the peer review process are treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors should not disclose or use unpublished information obtained through the review process for personal purposes.

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers should disclose potential conflicts of interest that could affect the objectivity of the review or editorial decision. When an appropriate conflict exists, another reviewer or editor may be assigned.