The Journal of Technology Innovation and Societyt (JTIS) applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and academic value of published research. All submissions are evaluated fairly, confidentially, and without discrimination.
Initial Editorial Screening (Desk Review)
All manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office and/or Handling Editor to verify:
Fit to the journal’s Aims & Scope
Compliance with Author Guidelines (structure, length, references, figures/tables, ethical statements)
Basic methodological soundness and clarity of research contribution
Research integrity checks, including plagiarism screening using similarity-detection software
Ethics and compliance (e.g., approvals where required, consent, data integrity, conflicts of interest)
A manuscript may be desk-rejected at this stage if it is out of scope, does not meet minimum academic or ethical standards, shows major methodological flaws, presents suspected misconduct, or fails to comply with submission requirements.
Double-Blind Peer Review
JTIS uses double-blind peer review, meaning:
Reviewers do not know the authors’ identities.
Authors do not know the reviewers’ identities.
To support anonymity, authors should remove identifying information from the main manuscript file (e.g., author names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying footnotes). References to prior work by the authors should be written in a neutral manner where feasible. The editorial office may return submissions for anonymization correction before review.
Reviewer Selection and Invitations
Each manuscript is typically reviewed by at least two independent experts.
Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
JTIS aims to avoid institutional or geographical bias by inviting reviewers from diverse regions where possible.
If reviewer reports are contradictory or require additional expertise, the editor may invite an additional reviewer.
Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript on:
Originality and significance of the research question and contribution
Technical quality and methodological rigor
Soundness of analysis and validity of conclusions
Clarity, organization, and academic writing quality
Adequacy of literature coverage and referencing
Reproducibility and transparency (where relevant: data, code, materials, and reporting)
Ethical compliance and integrity of the scholarly record
Reviewers provide constructive comments for authors and confidential recommendations to the editor.
Confidentiality, Conflicts of Interest, and Responsible Reviewing
All manuscripts and review materials are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, distribute, or use the content for personal advantage.
Reviewers must declare any conflict of interest (financial, professional, institutional, or personal). If a conflict exists, the reviewer should decline the invitation.
Reviewers should provide objective, respectful, and evidence-based feedback and avoid personal criticism.
Use of AI tools in peer review: Reviewers must not upload manuscripts or confidential review materials to public AI systems. Any use of permitted tools must not compromise confidentiality, and reviewers remain fully responsible for the accuracy and integrity of their review.
Editorial Decision and Revision Process
After peer review, the Handling Editor and/or Editor-in-Chief makes a decision based on reviewer reports and editorial judgment. Possible decisions include:
Accept
Minor Revision
Major Revision
Reject
For revision decisions, authors should submit:
a revised manuscript with changes clearly indicated (or tracked), and
a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation when necessary.
Review Timeline
JTIS is committed to efficient editorial handling while maintaining review quality. Typical timeframes are:
Initial editorial screening: approximately 7–14 days
Peer review (first round): approximately 4–8 weeks
Final decision depends on revision rounds and reviewer availability
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe a serious misunderstanding or procedural issue has occurred. Appeals must be submitted in writing with clear justification. The Editor-in-Chief (or a delegated senior editor not involved in the original decision) will review the case. The journal may seek additional independent advice where appropriate. Editorial decisions after appeal are final.
Integrity of the Scholarly Record
JTIS follows recognized best practices to protect the scholarly record. Where necessary, the journal may issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions in accordance with its ethics and malpractice policies.