Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Technology Innovation and Society (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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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
  1. 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.

  1. 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.