Review
Policy
Journal of Computer and Information Technology (Ultra Scientist) (JUCIT) is a double blind peer reviewed journal, that
means that identity of author(s) and reviewers are hidden from each other
throughout the review process.
Important
Points for Reviewers
· Before accepting an article for review, ensure that the reviewer is free
from any conflicts of interest and the reviewer is aware of the confidentiality
requirements and basic principle of peer review.
·
Are the author(s) credible?
·
Does the article meet high quality scientific research and credibility?
·
Checking the references whether done properly or not?
·
Check whether the articles have any recognizable plagiarism?
·
Check whether the article in compliant with the Aims and Scope of the
journal.
·
Does the article contain disqualified content?
·
Checking the article for meeting ethical requirement.
·
Write a detailed report of assessment. Point out the major short comings
of the paper.
Please do
not use straight forward statements on whether the paper should be published or
not.
Basic
Principle of Peer Review
Reviewers are asked to
provide thoughtful and unbiased feedback to authors to ensure that the
conclusions of the articles are valid and supported by the data and manuscripts
achieve reasonable standards. Reviewers should focus on scientific content of
the article.
Scientific
quality and Credibility
The arguments and
conclusions of the paper under review should be valid and supported by data
reported in the paper or referenced in other papers. The paper under review
should be written in proper English and proper technical words should be used
to fit for a scientific journal.
Readability
and Presentation
The paper under review
should be read without difficulty. If the paper under review reads badly you
should recommend copy editing as a condition of acceptance.
Referencing
and Plagiarism
The paper under review
should be free from unreferenced material published elsewhere. If you identify
material that appears to be plagiarized please inform the Editor/Chief editor.
Suitability
for the Journal
The paper under review
should fit within the aims and scope of the journal it has been submitted to.
The paper under review should not be likely to bring the journal into disrepute
should it be published owing to the paper’s content or the content of other
papers published elsewhere by the same author(s).
Validation
of Data
Results should be capable
of being reproduced under same conditions, environment and procedure as stated in the research
article by the author(s).
Author(s)
Authors should disclose
their affiliation and work at credible recognized private or public
institutions.
Disqualified
Content
Papers under review
containing content which is unscholarly or generally regarded as
pseudo-sciences are not acceptable for publication under any circumstances If
the paper under review contains any such material declare it in your review and
recommend rejection.
JUCIT requires authors to
confirm that they complied with all necessary ethical requirements around
identifiable human subjects and experiments involving humans and animals, both
when their paper is submitted and prior to publication.
Declaring
a Conflict of Interest
You may not undertake a
peer review if you are to do it objectively. If you have agreed to review paper
and subsequently identify a potential conflict of interest, inform the editor/
chief editor immediately and do not continue your review. Reviewers in a
conflict of interest may not suggest alternative reviewers.
Financial
and Commercial Conflicts of Interest
If the reviewer is deemed
to be in a conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a
peer review if you have, or have had in the past two years, any commercial
association or financial interests which may be interpreted as posing a
conflict of interest, including but not limited to consultancies, employment,
expert testimony, honoraria retainers, stock holdings or options and
memberships on boards of for profit organizations with a financial interest in
the work under review.
Professional
and Institutional Association
The reviewer is deemed to
be in conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a peer
review if:
·
You have worked at the same institution at any time in the past two
years as an author of the paper under review.
·
You have co-authored a paper, chapter, monograph, abstract or poster
with the author of paper in the past four years.
Social and
familiar Association
The reviewer are deemed to
be in a conflict of interest and therefore disqualified from undertaking a peer
review if:
·
You have a personal social association with the an author of paper under
review
·
You are a family member of any of the authors of the paper under review.
Other
Disqualifications
The reviewer is
disqualified from undertaking a peer review if:
·
You have ever been subject to a professional disciplinary hearing.
·
You are not currently working in the filed of paper under review.
·
You are a member of any journal’s editorial board that any authors of
paper under review are also members of, or have been in the previous 12 months.
·
You are the Chief Editor of Associate Editor of the journal to which the
paper under review has been submitted.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License