Review Policy

Peer Review Process:
MITS Journal uses a double-blind peer-review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and timeliness in evaluating manuscripts. Decisions to accept or reject a manuscript are based on its importance, originality, consistency, research validity, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Reviewers are chosen from various sources, including the editorial board, personal recommendations, author suggestions, and bibliographic databases.
Selection of Reviewers:
Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, previous publications in the relevant field, and past review performance. Review invitations include sensitive information and should be treated confidentially.
Initial Manuscript Evaluation:
All new submissions are screened for completeness and adherence to guidelines. Authors of papers rejected at this stage will typically be notified within 3-5 days.
Associate Editor Evaluation:
The Associate Editor assesses whether a manuscript should be peer-reviewed or rejected without review. Manuscripts may be rejected if they lack originality, have significant methodological flaws, poor grammar or English, or fall outside the journal’s scope. Authors will usually be informed within 5-10 days if their manuscript is rejected at this stage.
Peer Review:
Manuscripts deemed suitable are sent to at least one expert reviewer. Reviewers assess the manuscript’s originality, significance, relevance, coverage of existing literature, methodology, analysis, interpretation, and writing style. Reviewers provide anonymous feedback to the author and can also give confidential comments to the editor. Reviews typically take 15-20 days.
Final Decision:
The Associate Editor decides whether to reject or recommend the manuscript for publication, based on reviewers’ feedback. This decision, along with any recommendations, is communicated to the author. Once accepted, it takes up to 5 days to publish the article online.
Timeliness:
To ensure timely editorial decisions, reviewers are expected to respond promptly and provide their comments within the agreed timeframe. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, they should inform the assigning editor to arrange alternatives.