Peer Review Policy

!!!! Bi-Annual Double Blind Peer Reviewed Refereed Journal !!!!

!!!! Open Access Journal !!!!

Peer-review policy

This policy outlines the general principles of peer-review operated by the CTIJTM publishers and editorial board members. The journal adheres to a strict ethical policy, which the journal staff, editors, authors and evaluators are expected to maintain for content integrity and confidentiality.

General principles

Unbiased consideration is given to all articles offered for publication regardless of the race, gender, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, political philosophy, sexual orientation, age or reputation of the authors.

The journal is international in authorship and in readership, and evaluators are carefully selected from the international research community based on their profile, citations and domain expertise. Evaluators' names are kept confidential and may only be disclosed to journal Editorial Board members, who are also instructed to maintain confidentiality. We ask that evaluators do not transmit their report directly to the authors nor to disclose their identity to the authors or discuss the paper they have reviewed with colleagues unless it has been published.

Information and ideas obtained as an evaluator must be kept confidential and not used for competitive advantage, and evaluators should immediately disclose any conflicts of interest to the editors. Evaluators should inform the journal if they are unable to review a paper and should not delay the peer-review process unnecessarily, either deliberately or inadvertently.

Evaluators are expected to judge objectively the quality of the research reported, give fair, frank and constructive criticism and refrain from personal criticism of the authors.

Authors must not fabricate, falsify or misrepresent data or results. Authors must be honest in making claims for the results and conclusions of their research.

Authors should acknowledge the work of others used in their research and only cite publications that have influenced the direction and course of their study. Excessive self-citation must be avoided. Evaluators are expected to point out relevant work that has not been cited, and use citations to explain where elements of the work have been previously reported. Biased citation of literature is unacceptable.

Authors must not publish articles describing essentially the same studies or results in more than one primary research journal, or submit the same article concurrently to more than one journal. Evaluators should note any substantial similarity between the article and any paper published in or submitted to another journal.

When published, an article will receive a receipt date corresponding to the date when the article was first received by the editors.

Peer-review procedure

Articles submitted for publication, if they satisfy the requirements of the journal, are generally sent to two independent evaluators who are asked to report on the scientific quality and originality of the work as well as its presentation.

We are committed to publishing only high-quality material. Articles which evaluators or editors deem to be technically sound, but of little interest, will usually be rejected.

If there is sufficient agreement between the evaluators,

  • the article may be accepted;
  • the evaluators' reports may be sent to the authors for amendment or revision (major/ minor) of the article;
  • the article may be rejected; or

    if the article contains too many errors for the evaluators to comment fully on the scientific content, the authors will be asked to make major revisions and then resubmit the article.

Revised articles

When authors make revisions to their article in response to the evaluators' comments they are asked to submit a list of changes and any replies for transmission to the evaluators. The revised version may be returned to the original evaluators who are then asked whether the revisions have been carried out satisfactorily. If the evaluators remain dissatisfied, the article will be considered by the Editorial Board.

Use of an adjudicator

For the cases when evaluators' reports are not in agreement, the paper and the evaluators' reports may be sent to an adjudicator who is asked first to form his or her own opinion of the paper and then to read the evaluators' reports and adjudicate between them.


In the case of rejection, any appeal that the authors submit in response to the evaluators' reports will be considered by the Editorial Board and a revised version will be considered only if the Board thinks it appropriate.