Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy of the Journal of Data and Digital Innovation (JDDI)

The Journal of Data and Digital Innovation (JDDI) follows a rigorous and transparent peer-review process to ensure the publication of high-quality, original research. JDDI adheres to international ethical standards and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to maintain fairness, objectivity, and academic integrity.

1. Type of Peer Review

JDDI follows a double-blind peer review process, where:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

This approach eliminates bias based on an author’s name, institution, or country of origin, ensuring impartial evaluation.

2. Peer Review Process

Step 1: Initial Submission and Editorial Screening

  • The manuscript is checked for compliance with JDDI’s aims, scope, formatting guidelines, and ethical standards.
  • A plagiarism check is conducted using Turnitin or a similar tool.
  • Manuscripts failing to meet the basic criteria may be desk-rejected without external review.

Step 2: Assignment to Reviewers

  • Manuscripts passing the initial screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers.
  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, research background, and absence of conflicts of interest.

Step 3: Review and Evaluation

Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance of the research.
  • Methodological rigor and clarity of the study.
  • Relevance to JDDI’s scope and contribution to the field.
  • Accuracy of data interpretation and conclusions.
  • Ethical compliance.

Step 4: Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  1. Accept without revisions – Minor or no changes required.
  2. Minor revisions required – Authors must make small corrections.
  3. Major revisions required – Substantial changes needed before reconsideration.
  4. Reject – The manuscript does not meet publication standards.

Step 5: Author Revisions and Resubmission

  • Authors receive the review reports and must revise their manuscript accordingly.
  • A revised manuscript must include a point-by-point response to reviewer comments.
  • The revised version may be sent for a second round of review if necessary.

Step 6: Editorial Decision and Publication

  • The editor makes a final decision based on reviewer feedback.
  • Accepted manuscripts undergo final copyediting, formatting, and DOI assignment before online publication.

3. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities

  • Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the subject area.
  • They must provide constructive, unbiased, and confidential feedback within the given timeline.
  • Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Reviewers should maintain confidentiality and not use unpublished data for personal gain.

4. Appeals and Disputes

  • If authors disagree with a rejection or review decision, they may appeal with justification and supporting evidence.
  • Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board, and additional reviewers may be consulted if necessary.

5. Timeline and Publication Speed

  • Initial screening decision: Within 7–10 days of submission.
  • Review process: Typically 4–6 weeks, depending on reviewer availability.
  • Final decision: Within 8–12 weeks, including revisions.

JDDI is committed to a fair, transparent, and efficient peer-review process, ensuring high-quality scholarly contributions.