Peer Review Process

The Herald of Advanced Information Technology applies a rigorous double-anonymous peer review process to ensure fairness, objectivity, and scientific quality of all published articles. In this model, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the review process.

1. Initial Editorial Assessment

 

Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening conducted by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editorial board member. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • compliance with basic formatting and submission requirements;
  • scientific originality and contribution;
  • plagiarism detection using specialized software.

Manuscripts that do not meet the minimum standards may be rejected at this stage (desk rejection) or returned to authors for technical revision before peer review.

2. Assignment of Reviewers

 

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are selected based on their scientific expertise and absence of conflicts of interest.

All identifying information about authors is removed to ensure anonymity during the review process.

3. Peer Review Evaluation

 

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:

  • scientific originality and novelty;
  • methodological soundness and rigor;
  • clarity of presentation and structure;
  • validity of results and conclusions;
  • quality and relevance of references;
  • overall contribution to the field.

Based on their evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • accept without revision;
  • minor revisions required;
  • major revisions required;
  • reject.

4. Revision Stage

 

If revisions are required, the corresponding author receives anonymized reviewer comments through the OJS system. Authors are expected to revise the manuscript accordingly and provide a detailed response to each comment.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

5. Final Decision

 

The final decision regarding publication is made by the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief, based on reviewer recommendations and editorial assessment.

Possible decisions include:

  • acceptance;
  • request for additional revision;
  • rejection.

The decision is communicated to the corresponding author via the OJS platform.

6. Ethical Standards and Confidentiality

 

The journal follows the ethical guidelines of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All parties involved in the review process are required to maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers must not use or disclose any information from manuscripts prior to publication without explicit permission from the editorial office.

7. Review Timeline

 

  • Initial editorial screening: approximately 10 days;
  • Peer review process: approximately 6–8 weeks;
  • Total time to first decision: depends on reviewer response time and revision cycles.

The journal aims to ensure a timely yet thorough peer review process while maintaining high scientific standards.