Peer review is the foundation of scholarly quality at IJTIMES. The journal is grateful to its reviewers, whose careful, timely, and constructive assessments make rigorous publication possible.
🔎 The Journal's Review Model
IJTIMES applies an asymmetric peer-review model:
- General submissions undergo single-blind external peer review: the reviewer's identity is concealed from the author, while the author's identity is visible to the reviewer.
- Editorial submissions (manuscripts on which one or more authors holds an editorial role or is in the active reviewer pool) undergo double-blind external peer review.
Each manuscript receives a minimum of two external reviews. Full details are on the Peer Review Policy page.
📝 What to Evaluate
A useful review addresses, at minimum, the following dimensions:
- Originality and significance. Does the manuscript present a meaningful contribution? Has the work been published elsewhere?
- Scope-fit. Does the manuscript fall within IJTIMES's Aims and Scope?
- Methodological soundness. Are the methods appropriate, well-described, and sufficient to support the conclusions?
- Results and analysis. Are the results clearly presented, statistically sound, and well-interpreted?
- Discussion and conclusions. Are the conclusions justified by the evidence presented?
- Ethical compliance. Are required ethical declarations present? Are there concerns about plagiarism, image manipulation, or fabrication?
- Reporting quality. Is the manuscript clearly written, well-structured, and complete?
- References. Are the references appropriate, current, and complete?
- Data availability. Does the manuscript include a Data Availability Statement consistent with the journal's Data Availability Policy?
✅ Recommendation Categories
- Accept: the manuscript is suitable for publication, possibly with editorial copyediting only.
- Minor revisions: suitable for publication after limited author edits not requiring re-review.
- Major revisions: has merit but requires substantial rework; the revised version will be returned to the same reviewers.
- Reject: not suitable for publication in this journal in its current form.
- Reject and resubmit: has potential but requires fundamental rework that amounts to a new submission.
⛔ Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline to review a manuscript where they have a competing interest with the authors, including but not limited to: recent co-authorship (within five years); shared institutional affiliation; doctoral supervisory or supervisee relationship; personal relationship that could compromise impartiality; financial interest; or recent or current dispute with one of the authors.
🔒 Confidentiality
Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:
- Not share, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents to anyone outside the review process;
- Not use information from a manuscript for personal advantage prior to publication;
- Not retain copies of the manuscript after submitting the review;
- Seek explicit permission from the handling editor before consulting a colleague on a specialist methodological point.
🤖 Use of AI Tools by Reviewers
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts under review to public or third-party AI tools, including ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Copilot, or comparable services. Such uploads constitute a breach of confidentiality. The journal's full position is on the AI Use Policy for Reviewers page.
⏰ Timeliness
Reviewers are asked to complete reviews within three weeks of accepting an invitation. Where more time is needed, reviewers should inform the handling editor as early as possible. Reviewers who consistently meet deadlines are flagged in the journal's reviewer pool as preferred reviewers.
💬 Tone and Constructiveness
Reviews are most useful when they are specific, evidence-based, and constructive. Reviewers should focus on the work, not the author, and should phrase critique in a way that helps the author improve the manuscript. Reviews that are dismissive, derogatory, or that target the author's identity are not acceptable.
🏆 Recognition
On completion of each review, IJTIMES's editorial system sends the reviewer an automated acknowledgement email recording the manuscript identifier and the date of review completion. Reviewers can also self-record their reviews on the Web of Science Reviewer Recognition platform, with the journal able to confirm a completed review on request. Full details are on the Reviewer Recognition page.