Peer Review Policy

1. Overview

JRITM follows a stringent double-blind peer review process ensuring fairness, objectivity, and high academic quality. Both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

  • Every submission undergoes an initial review by the Editorial Office.
  • Checks include: scope relevance, formatting, plagiarism screening, and ethical compliance.
  • Manuscripts failing to meet basic standards may receive a desk rejection.

Initial Review Acceptance Time: 15 – 20 days

3. Double-Blind Peer Review

  • Each manuscript is assigned to two independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and publication credentials.
  • All reviewers must declare no conflict of interest.
  • Reviewers submit a structured report covering originality, methodology, clarity, and contribution.
  • Recommendation options include: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.

Peer Review Duration: 10 days after Initial Review Acceptance

4. Review Timeline Summary

  • Initial Editorial Screening: 15–20 days
  • Peer Review: 10 days
  • Final Publication: within 30 days after review completion

5. Plagiarism Screening

  • All manuscripts are screened using plagiarism detection tools.
  • Submissions exceeding acceptable similarity may be rejected.

6. Conflict of Interest Policy

  • Reviewers, editors, and authors must disclose any conflict of interest.
  • Editors do not handle submissions where they have a conflict.

7. Final Decision

  • The Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision after evaluating reviewer reports, author revisions, and overall quality.

8. Ethics and Confidentiality

  • JRITM adheres to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • All manuscript content is confidential and may not be shared or reused.

9. Review Workflow

  • Submission → Editorial Screening → Double-Blind Review → Revision → Final Decision → Publication