Editorial Policy

Pursuant to the character of this publication, the journal is indexed by the following agencies: (1) Philippine Electronic Journals; (2) Google Scholar; and, (3) Public Knowledge Project. The Advancing Information Technology Research is open to the global community of scholars who wish to have their researches published in a peer-reviewed journal. Contributors can access the website: www.ejournals.ph, and www.asianscientificjournals.com. Articles are contributed by researchers of the field of information technology. The frequency of issue is once a year. The efficiency and effectiveness of the editorial review process are critically dependent upon the actions of both the research authors and the reviewers. An author accepts the responsibility of preparing the research paper for evaluation by independent reviewers. The responsibility includes subjecting the manuscript to evaluation by peers and revising it prior to submission. The review process is not to be used as a means of obtaining feedback at early stages of developing the research paper. Reviewers and editors are responsible for providing constructive and prompt evaluation of submitted research papers based on the significance of their contribution and on the rigors of analysis and presentation.

 

The Peer Review System

Definition. Peer review (also known as refereeing) is the process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Peer review refers to the work done during the screening of submitted manuscripts and funding applications. This normative process encourages authors to meet the accepted standards of their discipline and prevents the dissemination of unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations and personal views. Peer review increases the probability that weaknesses will be identified, and, with advice and encouragement, fixed. For both grant-funding and publication in a scholarly journal, it is also normally a requirement that the subject is both novel and substantial.

Type. The double-blind review process is adopted for the journal. The reviewer/s and the author/s do not know each other’s identity.

Recruiting Referees. The task of picking reviewers is the responsibility of the editorial board. When a manuscript arrives, an editor solicits reviews from scholars or other experts to referee the manuscript. In some cases, the authors may suggest the referees’ names subject to the Editorial Board’s approval. The referees must have an excellent track record as researchers in the field as evidenced by researches published in refereed journals, research-related awards, and an experience in peer review. Referees are not selected from among the author’s close colleagues, students, or friends. Referees are to inform the editor of any conflict of interests that may arise. The Editorial Board often invites research author to name people whom they considered qualified to referee their work. The author’s input in selecting referees is solicited because academic writing typically is very specialized. The identities of the referees selected by the Editorial Board are kept unknown to research authors. However, the reviewer’s identity can be disclosed under some special circumstances.

Peer Review Process. The Editorial Board sends advance copies of an author ’s work to experts in the field (known as “referees†or“reviewersâ€) through e-mail or a Web-based manuscript processing system. There are two or three referees for a given article. Two are experts of the topic of research and one is an expert in research and statistics who shall review the technical components of the research. These referees return to the board the evaluation of the work that indicates the observed weaknesses or problems along with suggestions for improvement. The board then evaluates the referees’ comments and notes opinion of the manuscript before passing the decision with the referees’ comments back to the author(s).

Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection. A manuscript is accepted when it is (1) endorsed for publication by 2 or 3 referees, (2) the instructions of the reviewers are substantially complied; (3) ethical standards and protocols are complied for studies involving humans and animals; and (4) the manuscript passed the plagiarism detection test with a score of at least 80 for originality, otherwise the manuscript is rejected. The referees’ evaluations include an explicit recommendation  of what to do with the manuscript, chosen from options provided by the journal. Most recommendations are along the following lines:

•     Unconditional acceptance

•     Acceptance with revision based on the referee’ recommendations

•     Rejection with invitation to resubmit upon major revisions based on the referees’ and editorial board’s recommendations

•     Outright rejection

 

In situations where the referees disagree substantially about the quality of a work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When the editor receives very positive and very negative reviews for the same manuscript, the board will solicit one or more additional reviews as a tie-breaker. In the case of ties, the board may invite authors to reply to a referee’s criticisms and permit a compelling rebuttal to break the tie. If the editor does not feel confident to weigh the persuasiveness of a rebuttal, the board may solicit a response from the referee who made the original criticism. In rare instances, the board will convey communications back and forth between an author and a referee, in effect allowing them to debate on a point. Even in such a case, however, the board does not allow referees to confer with each other and the goal of the process is explicitly not to reach a consensus or to convince anyone to change his/her opinions.