Peer-Review Process

All manuscripts are considered confidential and are strictly reviewed by peer-reviewed members of the editorial board or professional ad hoc/in-house reviewers.

To speed up the review process, authors should recommend at least three experienced reviewers in the field, who are not members of their institution, who have not been associated with their laboratory recently, and who would otherwise be considered a conflict of interest regarding the manuscript submitted. Please provide their contact details where indicated on the submission form. Impersonation during the review process is considered gross misconduct.

For ease of review, copies of printed and posted manuscripts that are essential for judging the current manuscript should be included as a blend of unpublished files.

When a manuscript is sent to a journal, it is given a manuscript number (e.g., ijti/123/22) and assigned to the main editor. (Always mention this manuscript number when in contact with the editor and the Library Department.) From there it was assigned to at least two independent experts for peer review. Conflict reviews, where the authors' identities are known to reviewers, are used. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to inform fellow authors of the status of the manuscript during the submission, review, and publishing process. The reviewers are working under strict guidelines set out in the "Reviewers' Guidelines" and are expected to complete their review as soon as possible. See the reviewers section for more information on reviewer support and visibility. Once the manuscript has been submitted, it is submitted for peer review by a few experts in the field. Updates usually take about 2 weeks, and a decision is made (accept, change, or reject) the manuscript. It should be expected that there will be minor or major updates required by the authors during the review process. Manuscripts may need to be revised if the editor seems it necessary.

The corresponding author is notified by the editor or chief editor of his or her decision to accept, reject, or require modification. If a modification is requested, the corresponding author must submit the modified version within 1 month or withdraw the manuscript risk. A point-by-point response to every review should be uploaded as a separate response to the reviewer's comment file. Additionally, the Marked Text file (excluding statistics) highlighting all changes from the original text delivery should be uploaded as a separate file if the main editor requests it. For the benefit of editors and reviewers reviewing updates, all changes to this file should be highlighted, no matter how small. Please note that manuscripts should not be processed by editing until a version with all the changes noted has been submitted.

Manuscripts that have been rejected, or revoked after being returned for repair, will not be considered by the Journal, although a formal complaint may be instituted.