Peer Review

Peer Review Policy

The International Journal of Computer Technology and Electronics Communication (IJCTEC) is committed to publishing high-quality, original, and ethically conducted research through a rigorous peer review process. All manuscripts submitted to the journal undergo an impartial evaluation by subject-matter experts to ensure scientific quality, originality, technical soundness, and relevance.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process aims to evaluate:

  • Originality and novelty of the research
  • Scientific and technical merit
  • Methodological accuracy
  • Significance and contribution to the field
  • Clarity of presentation
  • Quality of references and supporting literature
  • Ethical compliance and research integrity

Review Model

IJCTEC follows a Double-Blind Peer Review process in which:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
  • Editors maintain confidentiality throughout the review process.

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant research area.

Review Timeline

·        Initial Editorial Screening: 3–5 working days

·        Peer Review Process: Approximately 4–5 weeks

·        Final Editorial Decision: Within one week after receiving reviewer reports

·        Online Publication: Approximately 2 weeks after acceptance, subject to completion of the final publication requirements.

Editorial Process

The editorial process ensures fairness, transparency, and academic quality throughout the publication cycle.

Step 1 – Manuscript Submission

Authors submit manuscripts through the journal's online submission system or official email.

Step 2 – Preliminary Editorial Screening

The editorial office verifies:

  • Journal scope
  • Formatting requirements
  • Completeness of submission
  • Compliance with author guidelines

Step 3 – Plagiarism Screening

All submissions are screened using plagiarism detection software to ensure originality.

Step 4 – Editor Evaluation

The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript for:

  • Scientific quality
  • Relevance
  • Novelty
  • Suitability for peer review

Step 5 – Reviewer Assignment

The manuscript is assigned to two or more independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant subject area.

Step 6 – Double-Blind Peer Review

Reviewers assess the manuscript and provide recommendations regarding:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Step 7 – Editorial Decision

The Editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions:

  • Accept
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject

Step 8 – Author Revision

Authors submit the revised manuscript along with a detailed response to reviewer comments.

Step 9 – Final Acceptance

The Editor confirms that reviewer comments have been satisfactorily addressed and issues the final acceptance decision.

Step 10 – Production and Publication

Accepted manuscripts undergo:

  • Copyediting
  • Proofreading
  • Typesetting
  • DOI assignment 
  • Online publication

Accepted articles are generally published within 2 weeks after final acceptance.