Peer Review Policy

The peer review process for "Journal of Technological Information, Management & Engineering Science" (JTIMES) aims to ensure the publication of high-quality, original, and impactful research within the fields of technological information, management, and engineering science. We value rigorous and constructive reviews that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in these domains.


  • Double-blind review: All manuscripts undergo a double-blind review process, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. This helps to ensure fairness and objectivity in the evaluation process.
  • Selection of reviewers: Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise in the topic of the manuscript and their publication record. We strive for diversity in reviewer selection to ensure a range of perspectives are considered.
  • Review criteria: Manuscripts are evaluated based on the following criteria:
    • Originality and contribution to the field
    • Methodological soundness and rigor
    • Clarity and quality of writing
    • Significance and impact of the findings
    • Adherence to JTIMES formatting guidelines
  • Revision process: Authors are given the opportunity to revise their manuscripts based on reviewer feedback. The editor makes the final decision on publication, considering the quality of the revisions and the feedback from reviewers.

Reviewer responsibilities:

  • Reviewers are expected to provide timely and constructive feedback.
  • Reviews should be objective and evidence-based, avoiding personal attacks or biases.
  • Reviewers should maintain confidentiality regarding the author and manuscript information.
  • Reviewers should declare any conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review.

Author responsibilities:

  • Authors should ensure their manuscripts are original and have not been published elsewhere.
  • Authors should follow the JTIMES formatting guidelines and submission instructions carefully.
  • Authors should respond to reviewer feedback thoughtfully and professionally, even if they disagree with it.