Peer Review Process
All research articles published in ICTer Journal are peer-reviewed. ICTer Journal operates with “double-blind” peer review policy in which neither reviewer nor the author will not get to know the identity of themselves.
Following is the peer review process applied in ICTer Journal.
Peer Review Process – Regular Papers
- Upon receiving a new submission, each paper is subjected to a preliminary review by a member of the steering committee to assess the suitability of the paper and relevance to the ICTer journal.
- The paper is checked for plagiarism through plagiarism detection tools.
- If the preliminary review is successful, the paper is assigned to an associate editor.
- The Associate Editor sends the paper for blind review to 3 reviewers picked from the reviewer database. There is a template for obtaining the feedback/comments of the reviewers.
- Upon receiving the blind reviews, the Associate Editor decides whether the paper is suitable for publishing in the journal and authors are informed of the decision. (If there are concerns raised by the reviewers, the authors may be given an opportunity to submit a revised version and address the concerns, up to the satisfaction of the Associate Editor).
- If suitable to be published, the paper is proof-read and subjected to copy-editing.
- The copy-edited paper is again checked for plagiarism through the Turn-it-in software.
- The paper is approved and assigned to an issue in an ICTer Journal Steering Committee meeting.
- The WebMaster publishes the paper in the online issue of the journal.
Criteria for Publication
A journal paper to be published in ICTer journal should meet the following general criteria:
- Relevance to ICTer Scope
- Adequate scientific merit
- Followed author guidelines
- Substantial literature review
- Substantial research contribution
- Critical Evaluation
- Original work which has not been formally published or under review in any other journal/book/ conference/etc.
The Associate Editor will provide a recommendation regarding a particular manuscript based on reviewers’ comments as following:
- Accept without further modifications
- Accept subject to minor revisions
- Major revision, providing resubmission with substantial modifications
- Reject, no resubmission allowed