{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"JITA -Journal of Information Technology and Application","provider_url":"https:\/\/jita-au.com","author_name":"admin","author_url":"https:\/\/jita-au.com\/index.php\/author\/jita-au-com\/","title":"Instructions for Reviewers - JITA -Journal of Information Technology and Application","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"RndZttBm1A\"><a href=\"https:\/\/jita-au.com\/index.php\/instructions-for-reviewers\/\">Instructions for Reviewers<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/jita-au.com\/index.php\/instructions-for-reviewers\/embed\/#?secret=RndZttBm1A\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;Instructions for Reviewers&#8221; &#8212; JITA -Journal of Information Technology and Application\" data-secret=\"RndZttBm1A\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/jita-au.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Instructions for Reviewers Peer Review Process 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 Apply for Reviewer Ethics &#038; Responsibility 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\u2019s 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\u2019s 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. JITA is committed to: maintaining the editorial independence of\u00a0 journal editors supporting journal editors to run their journals ethically and transparently maintaining an accurate and transparent academic record, including publishing corrections and retractions when necessary Authors Authors should ensure that: their work is original and written by them their work has not been previously published and has been submitted only to the journal where material is taken from other sources (including their own published writing) the source is clearly cited and that where appropriate permission is obtained their work does not infringe on any rights of others, including privacy rights and intellectual property rights their data is true and not manipulated their data is their own or that they have permission to use data reproduced in their paper any real or apparent conflicting or competing interest is clearly stated on submission of their paper (this would include funding assistance) they adhere to all research ethics guidelines of their discipline, particularly where human or animal subjects are involved they contact the Editor to identify and correct any material errors upon discovery, whether prior or subsequent to publication of their work authorship of the paper is accurately represented, including ensuring that all individuals credited as authors participated in the actual authorship of the work and that all who participated are credited and have given consent for publication Above all, authors should be transparent.\u00a0 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\u2019s editor. If the editor decides it is appropriate to publish, the paper itself should state clearly any potential overlap. \u00a0 Reviewers Reviewers must: maintain the confidentiality of the review process refrain from contacting the authors directly without permission of the journal immediately alert their journal editor of any real or potential competing interest that could affect the impartiality of their reviewing and decline to review where appropriate conduct themselves fairly and impartially 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 Editors should: maintain and promote consistent ethical policies for their journals oversee and act to enforce those policies as needed in a fair and consistent manner ensure the confidentiality of the review process exercise the highest standards of personal integrity in their work as editor of the journal, recognising and planning for instances where they could have a competing interest or the appearance of a competing interest work with authors, reviewers, and Editorial Board members as necessary to ensure they are sufficiently advised regarding their journals\u2019 ethics and publishing policies and that the journal\u2019s stewardship on ethical matters is fair, unbiased, and timely Everyone including Editorial Boards We should promote fairness and equality and oppose discrimination We should promote the transparency of and respect for the academic record We should respect the confidentiality of others We should be transparent about real or apparent competing interests Additional Resources Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/publicationethics.org\/ American Educational Research Association (AERA):\u00a0http:\/\/www.aera.net\/Portals\/38\/docs\/About_AERA\/CodeOfEthics(1).pdf American Political Science Association (APSA) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/www.apsanet.org\/RESOURCES\/For-Faculty\/Ethics American Psychological Association (APA) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/www.apa.org\/ethics\/code\/index.aspx British Educational Research Association (BERA) &#8212;\u00a0https:\/\/www.bera.ac.uk\/researchers-resources\/resources-for-researchers Council of Science Editors (CSE) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/www.councilscienceeditors.org\/i4a\/pages\/index.cfm?pageid=3331 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) &#8212; \u00a0http:\/\/www.icmje.org\/urm_main.html National Institutes of Health (NIH) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/ethics.od.nih.gov\/procedures.htm#protocol World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) &#8212;\u00a0http:\/\/www.wame.org\/policies-and-resources World Medical Association (WMA):\u00a0http:\/\/www.wma.net\/en\/20activities\/10ethics\/index.htm Instructions for Reviewers Peer Review Process 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","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/jita-au.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/peer-review-procces-1024x304.png"}