JOTEMACS follows Double Blinded Review process under the Peer Review. In this process, both the reviewer and the author remain anonymous to each other.
In the abstract field of knowledge, setting a parameter could be incongruous with the immediate thought. But, one has to follow a certain norm while adjudging an article, when it comes to precision and appraisal. These are as follows: –
Confidentiality is a key feature of expertise verification. Therefore, we recommend a secret review process that is not shared between the reviewer and the author. This is entirely an individual product of the reviewer, where the judgement is made based on certain yardsticks, essential to a collective research area. The Editor can sometimes be the collaborator in certain cases but he certainly should not divulge out any bit of information to the author. Strict Professional in this area is highly critical.
Blind review is meant for fair-dealing. By a logical extension of the above point, this very unique blind review process is launched where the reviewer is made entirely obliterated of the authors’ identity and whereabouts. This process serves to ensure uniformity, impartiality and objectivity on the part of the reviewer.
We put high value on time. Since the journal provides a rapid course with the publication, the entire review process is a meticulous analysis within a restricted time period. With a touch of skill and knowledge, the reviewer has to adhere to the given deadline.
This is synonymous with authenticity. Keeping relevance within the appropriate contexts and jurisdictions, the submission has to be original in words and in idea. The Reviewer should judge an article with respect to its genuineness and uniqueness. Originality is ascertained based on the extent to which an author’s article adds up to the extant corpus of theoretical, empirical, methodological and applied research literature. If the research finding collides with one of a time ahead, the article should immediately be passed on to the Editor mentioning the reference portion along with its unique manuscript id.
We aim at structural review. As the skeleton is to the human body, so is structure to an article. It helps the contents fit to its contour by opting for an amalgam of the stuffing and the frame. Each article has to be laid out in alliance with the convention where all the relating parts like abstract, introduction, methodology, results, conclusions, reference and bibliography, are in proper consistency.
Examples are better than precepts and examples are even weightier when they are exercised. Dealing with research and innovation, an article has to give an apt eye to the practicability of its proposition. The suggestions/recommendations should be practically implementable rather than being merely passively manipulative.
A multi-disciplinary journal like the JoTEMaCs covers an extensive research area. The articles are invited from different arenas focusing mainly on, but not restricted to: Technology, Engineering, Management, and Computational Sciences. Our goal is to create and disseminate knowledge, but the Reviewer is not supposed to lose his/her foothold in the labyrinth of multiple studies. Each article should be reviewed following conventional research methodology.
Language is the carrier of an idea. So it needs to be well-structured, parsimonious and familiar, in order to merge with a lucid style of paraphrasing the different beneficial points and comments. Therefore, a smart diction is desirable and required on the part of the Reviewer.