IJMTS Peer Review Policy

IJMTS journal is a double-blind peer-reviewed international journal published in English.

Articles for consideration should be submitted using the online submission form. Submissions through e-mail will not be considered. Submission is electronic only. Manuscripts are reviewed in an unbiased manner, receiving prompt attention by the editorial office and its reviewers. After a preliminary assessment of the suitability of the paper by the Editor, any paper will follow a peer review process. The review criteria considered are the novelty and originality of the paper, the quality of research methodology, the organization and clarity, the reference to prior work, and the quality of results. Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise and our database is constantly being updated. Reviewers are also asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

• Is original
• Is methodologically sound
• Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
• Has results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
• Correctly references previous relevant work.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but reviewers may, if so wish, suggest corrections to the manuscript. On the other hand, required time for the review process is dependent on the response of the reviewers. Should the reviewer’s reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion will be sought. In rare cases for which it is extremely difficult to find a second reviewer to review the manuscript, or when the one reviewer’s report has thoroughly convinced the Editor, decisions at this stage to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision are made on the basis of only one reviewer’s report. The Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with recommendations made by the reviewers, which usually includes verbatim comments by the reviewers. Revised manuscripts might be returned to the initial reviewers who may then request another revision of a manuscript. A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with any recommendations made by the reviewers, and may include verbatim comments by the reviewers. Reviewers advise the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept, revision or reject the article. The goal of the Editorial office is of providing the reviewers’ reports, and the final decision by the Editor, within 30 days since submission. The whole process will be handled by the Managing Editor, to whom all inquiries should be addressed.

The following is the publication process that every manuscript submitted to this journal undergoes during the peer-review process. 

• A manuscript is submitted to the journal through the journal online submission portal.
• The Manuscript is assigned with Paper-ID from the Managing Editor.
• The Managing Editorial team reads the manuscript and determines if it is appropriate for publication, if not manuscript will be rejected in the initial level itself.
• If the manuscript is appropriate for publication then the Managing Editorial Team checks for plagiarism and if plagiarism similarity is above 15% then the manuscript is rejected.
• If the manuscript is free from plagiarism then the Managing Editorial Team checks for page format, alignment, and Reference format as per journal publication guidelines. If the manuscript is not in proper format then it is sent to the author for proper formatting.
• If the manuscript follows all journal formatting standards and free from plagiarism, the manuscript is sent to Chief Editor for Editorial Reviews.
• The Editor-in-Chief reads the manuscript and determines if it is appropriate and worthy for further review by checking the contribution of the manuscript to the research community in terms of novelty and originality.
• The Editor-in-Chief assigns the manuscript to an Associate Editor, who oversees the review process.
• If the Associate Editor finds that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they should assign the manuscript to two external reviewers, provided that no conflict of interests exists between the reviewers and the manuscript’s authors.
• The manuscript is reviewed by the quality of research and research methodology and publication standards.
• Based on the report of the review, the Associate Editor makes a recommendation of one of the following actions to the Editor-in-Chief:
• Publish unchanged
• Consider after Minor Changes
• Consider after Major Changes
• Reject
• If the Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are informed to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes. Once the Editor is satisfied with the suggested minor changes the manuscript will be accepted and the publication process proceeds.
• If the Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the authors are required to revise their manuscript by that recommendation and re-submit their revised manuscript. If the original reviewers are satisfied with the revised manuscript, reviewers will make a recommendation for publication. Otherwise, the manuscript will be rejected.

The journal is committed to keeping the content of all submissions confidential until the publication date. Although we make every possible effort to ensure reviewers honor their confidentiality commitments, we cannot be held responsible for the conduct of reviewers. Reviewers should be aware that it is our policy to keep their names confidential, and that we do our utmost to ensure this confidentiality. To speed up the review process, the Journal pays some fixed honorarium in monetary form.

Reviewer’s responsibilities are also very important at the peer-review process. Reviewers must follow the following principles:

• Judgments should be objective.
• Reviewers should have no conflict of interest.
• Reviewers should point out relevant published work which is not yet cited.
• Reviewed articles should be treated confidentially.