The JIMS 8i – Journal of Information, Communication and Computing Technology (IJICCT) follows a rigorous peer review process to ensure the quality, integrity, and originality of published research. The journal is committed to maintaining transparency and fairness in the evaluation of all submitted manuscripts.
Stage 1
Editorial Screening
1–2 weeks
Stage 2
Reviewer Allocation
4–8 weeks
Stage 3
Review Outcome
1–2 weeks
Stage 4
Revision Process
2–4 weeks
Stage 5
Final Decision
1–2 weeks
Type of Peer Review: Double Blind Peer Review Process
The journal follows a Double-Blind Peer Review Process where the identities of both authors and reviewers are anonymous to each other. This process ensures fairness and reduces biases in the evaluation of scholarly work. The journal adheres to COPE guidelines, maintains strict confidentiality, and screens all manuscripts for plagiarism and ethical compliance.
Selection of Reviewers for the Board of Referees
JIMS 8i has a dynamic Reviewer board that is updated periodically to ensure availability of domain experts for effective evaluation of manuscripts across various technical areas. Criteria for admission to reviewer board:
Academic Qualification
Subject Expertise & Professional Affiliations
Research Profile and Verification
Individuals interested in serving the JIMS 8i – Journal of Information, Communication and Computing Technology (IJICCT), "Board of Referees" apply through "Join as Reviewer" link and providing all required details. The editorial board evaluates all applications and candidates whose credentials matching journals criteria are selected and added to the board.
Reviewer Assignment Policy
Reviewers are selected based on their subject expertise, research publications, academic qualifications, and professional experience. The editorial team ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest and are capable of providing objective, confidential, and timely evaluations of the manuscript.
Decision Process
The decision regarding the selection or rejection of a manuscript is based on a multi-stage evaluation process outlined below:
Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening
🕐 Time Line: 1–2 weeks
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial screening by the editorial team to assess the various aspects like:
- Journal's Editorial and Ethical requirements
- Scope of the manuscript
- Compliance of manuscript with Journal's submission Guidelines
- Originality and similarity of manuscript with existing work
- Declaration of Originality and Exclusive Submission by the author/s
- Manuscript is checked for Grammatical accuracy, scientific presentation, formatting and citation guidelines of the journal
Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria at this stage may be rejected or returned to the author for revision. This stage ensures that only high-quality manuscripts are considered for further review.
Stage 2: Review Selection and Manuscript Allocation
🕐 Time Line: 4–8 weeks
Manuscripts that pass the initial Editorial Screening are assigned to at least two independent reviewers of the relevant field through an online system. Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on the following aspects:
- Originality and Novelty
- Methodological rigor
- Clarity and Organization
- Relevance to the journal's scope
- Contribution to the concern domain/field
Reviewers are selected based on their academic qualifications, research experience, and publication record. The journal ensures that reviewers have no conflicts of interest.
Stage 3: Review Outcome and Decisions
🕐 Time Line: 1–2 weeks
Based on the reviewers' recommendations, manuscript may be:
- ✓ Accept without Revision
- ○ Accept with Minor Revision
- △ Accept with Major Revision
- ✗ Rejected
"In case of any discrepancy or conflict, the Editor-in-Chief is authorized to make the final decision regarding publication."
Stage 4: Revision Process
🕐 Time Line: 2–4 weeks
Through an online web portal, detailed reviewer's comments are shared with the authors and requested to revise the manuscript in accordance with reviewer's comments. Revised manuscripts are shared with the existing reviewer's (if available) or may be given to the new reviewer.
Stage 5: Final Decision
🕐 Time Line: 1–2 weeks
The Editor-in-Chief/s holds the right to take the final decision in consensus with editorial team members, regarding publication of manuscripts submitted. Their decision is based on reviewer/s reports and editorial judgments.