JITA critically evaluates all manuscripts for the compliance with novelty, importance to the specific field and convincing evidences for the conclusions drawn.
All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editorial Board for relevancy to meet editorial criteria and standards. Manuscripts retained for review are sent to two or three reviewers selected based on their research interest and qualification.
Based on the opinion of reviewers, the Editor decides to: accept the manuscript with or without minor revision, invite the authors to revise the manuscript before a final decision is reached, or reject the manuscript on lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Reviewers may recommend a particular course of action in their confidential comments to the editor, but should bear in mind that the Editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reviews are those setting out clear, substantiated arguments and include a recommendation of a course of action directed to the authors
JITA is committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. The value of academic publishing relies on everyone involved behaving ethically. The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive. We encourage our authors and editors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. JITA believes strongly in maintaining an accurate academic record and follows COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. If you are unsure of a journal-related ethical issue, you might well find the answer in COPE’s wealth of materials, but if you have any questions or concerns please also feel free to contact the Editor of the Journal, or the JITA Publishing Editor, or you can email us.
Authors should ensure that:
Above all, authors should be transparent. For example, if an author is not sure whether her paper is original (for instance, whether it might constitute duplicate publication), she should inform the journal’s editor. If the editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap.
Reviewers must:
We are aware, of course, that academics will come from a particular school of thought and/or may have strong ties to a particular interest. All we ask is that reviewers strive to act fairly. If in doubt about whether a conflict exists, a reviewer should be transparent and seek the views of the journal editor.
Editors should:
World Medical Association (WMA): http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/index.htm
JITA critically evaluates all manuscripts for the compliance with novelty, importance to the specific field and convincing evidences for the conclusions drawn.
All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editorial Board for relevancy to meet editorial criteria and standards. Manuscripts retained for review are sent to two or three reviewers selected based on their research interest and qualification.
Based on the opinion of reviewers, the Editor decides to: accept the manuscript with or without minor revision, invite the authors to revise the manuscript before a final decision is reached, or reject the manuscript on lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Reviewers may recommend a particular course of action in their confidential comments to the editor, but should bear in mind that the Editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reviews are those setting out clear, substantiated arguments and include a recommendation of a course of action directed to the authors
JITA is committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. The value of academic publishing relies on everyone involved behaving ethically. The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive. We encourage our authors and editors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. JITA believes strongly in maintaining an accurate academic record and follows COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. If you are unsure of a journal-related ethical issue, you might well find the answer in COPE’s wealth of materials, but if you have any questions or concerns please also feel free to contact the Editor of the Journal, or the JITA Publishing Editor, or you can email us.
Authors should ensure that:
Above all, authors should be transparent. For example, if an author is not sure whether her paper is original (for instance, whether it might constitute duplicate publication), she should inform the journal’s editor. If the editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap.
Reviewers must:
We are aware, of course, that academics will come from a particular school of thought and/or may have strong ties to a particular interest. All we ask is that reviewers strive to act fairly. If in doubt about whether a conflict exists, a reviewer should be transparent and seek the views of the journal editor.
Editors should:
World Medical Association (WMA): http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/index.htm
JITA critically evaluates all manuscripts for the compliance with novelty, importance to the specific field and convincing evidences for the conclusions drawn.
All submitted manuscripts are first reviewed by the Editorial Board for relevancy to meet editorial criteria and standards. Manuscripts retained for review are sent to two or three reviewers selected based on their research interest and qualification.
Based on the opinion of reviewers, the Editor decides to: accept the manuscript with or without minor revision, invite the authors to revise the manuscript before a final decision is reached, or reject the manuscript on lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Reviewers may recommend a particular course of action in their confidential comments to the editor, but should bear in mind that the Editors may have to make a decision based on conflicting advice. The most useful reviews are those setting out clear, substantiated arguments and include a recommendation of a course of action directed to the authors
JITA is committed to upholding the integrity of the work we publish. The value of academic publishing relies on everyone involved behaving ethically. The following points are only intended to give a broad overview and are not exhaustive. We encourage our authors and editors to refer to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) website. JITA believes strongly in maintaining an accurate academic record and follows COPE’s Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing. If you are unsure of a journal-related ethical issue, you might well find the answer in COPE’s wealth of materials, but if you have any questions or concerns please also feel free to contact the Editor of the Journal, or the JITA Publishing Editor, or you can email us.
Authors should ensure that:
Above all, authors should be transparent. For example, if an author is not sure whether her paper is original (for instance, whether it might constitute duplicate publication), she should inform the journal’s editor. If the editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap.
Reviewers must:
We are aware, of course, that academics will come from a particular school of thought and/or may have strong ties to a particular interest. All we ask is that reviewers strive to act fairly. If in doubt about whether a conflict exists, a reviewer should be transparent and seek the views of the journal editor.
Editors should:
World Medical Association (WMA): http://www.wma.net/en/20activities/10ethics/index.htm
