Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure the quality of the theoretical and applied research that is published. This is an objective process carried out by all reputable scientific and technical journals. The journal’s peer reviewers therefore play an important role in maintaining high standards and ensuring that all manuscripts are refereed by reputable reviewers following the procedure outlined below.

Manuscript evaluation

1.   The Editor-in-Chief or Co-Editor sends an email to the corresponding author to acknowledge the reception of a new manuscript.

2.    The Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editors first evaluate all manuscripts that have been submitted for review. Some reasons for outright rejection at the early stage include: lack of originality, insufficient merits, obvious technical flaws, poor writing, lack of methodological rigor, inappropriate length, and a topic that is out of the scope of the journal.

3.    Those manuscripts that meet the journal′s criteria are passed on to at least 3 reviewers with expertise in the field. Otherwise, the author is informed about the reasons for the decision to reject the paper outright.

4.    The Editor in charge receives and checks the review reports from reviewers. It should be underscored that at least three formal review reports are needed to proceed and decide whether the manuscript is “Accepted without changes”, “Accepted with minor changes”, “Accepted with major changes” or “Rejected”. In any case, the final decision report, accepting or rejecting the manuscript, will be sent to the corresponding author including the recommendations and comments from reviewers and Editors.

Type of peer review
This journal applies a single blind review, where the referee remains anonymous throughout the reviewing process.

How do we select a referee?
The journal maintains a data base of referees classified by their expertise. Referees are selected from the data base and matched to the paper according to their expertise. Our database of referees is continually being updated. Authors may also wish to suggest referees, although these recommendations may or may not be actioned.

How long does the review process take?
In a standard submission the manuscript will be reviewed within three months, but review time may vary (be longer or shorter) in particular cases. For example, if the referees′ reports contradict one another or when a referee report is delayed for some reason, the Editor-in-Chief and Co-Editors may request the services of another expert opinion to make a final decision on the manuscript′s inclusion.

How is the referee report structured?
Referees reports contain information about the following aspects of the manuscript:
Originality
Clarity of presentation
Rigor of methodology used
Writing quality
Significance to theory and application
Clarity of results presentation
Support of the conclusions
References of previous relevant work

The referees are expected to make suggestions for the authors, including ways of improving the presentation, structure, and in general the quality of their research. However, the referees are not expected to edit the manuscripts and correct the language, as this is not an expectation of the peer review process specified by the journal. Peer reviewers can suggest language corrections to the manuscript.

5.    If the manuscript is “Rejected”, the main reasons for rejection are notified to the author.

6.    If the manuscript is “Accepted subject to minor changes”, the author is asked to prepare a second version of the manuscript based on the recommendations and comments. The authors must respond to "all the points" raised by the referees. Once this revised version has been received, this is evaluated by the Editors based on the initial recommendations made by the reviewers, before a final decision is made.

7.    If the manuscript is “Accepted subject to major changes”, the author is asked to prepare a second version of the manuscript based on the recommendations and comments. The authors must respond to "all the points" raised by the referees. Once this revised version has been received, this is sent to reviewers with experience in the topic of the manuscript to undertake a second review process.

8.    The author is informed of the final acceptance of the manuscript and is asked to complete, sign and fax the copyright form.

9.    A proofreading copy of the article ready for publication on the Web site is prepared and sent to the author once the copyright form is received.

10.    Once the proofreading copy is approved by the author, the article is scheduled for publication on the journal′s web site.

How to become a referee for the Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research?    
If you are not currently a referee for the journal, but would like to be added to the data base of referees for this journal, please contact the Editor-in-Chief (see contact details at www.jtaer.com).