About the Journal
Focus and Scope
The Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Content (JTeC) is a peer-reviewed publication with original works by researchers, academicians, and practitioners, covering Computing Technologies and Creative Contents and their innovative applications. This journal serves as a platform to promote the exchange of ideas from researchers around the world, as well as becoming a fertile ground for producing high-quality research. JTeC publishes one issue per year.
JTeC aims to provide a publication platform for high-quality research and innovation related to Computing, Computer Engineering Technology, and Multimedia Technology research fields. Areas relevant to the scope of the journal (but not limited to) are Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence, Embedded System, Signal and Image Processing and Robotics); Big Data (Big Data Architectures, Big Data Analytics, Data Warehousing, and Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery & Retrieval); New Media Technologies (Augmented and Virtual Reality, Animation, Multimedia Systems, and Social Computing); Security and Privacy (Information Security and Cryptography, Computer and Network Forensics, Trusted Computing and Wireless and Pervasive/Ubiquitous Computing Security) and Fundamental Research (Information Systems, Computer System Security, Software Engineering, Computer Systems, and Engineering, System Network, Interactive Multimedia Design, Computer Animation)
Peer Review Process
Peer Review Policy for Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Contents (JTeC)
The practice of peer review is to ensure that good and original work is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing that is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees, therefore, play a vital role in maintaining the high standard of articles published in the Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Contents.
All manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below:
Article types
JTeC publishes the following article types:
- Regular research articles
- Full-length Reviews
The various article types have different scope and formatting requirements. Please refer to the document ' Format requirements for JTeC article types' for detailed information.
Initial manuscript evaluation
The Editor first evaluates a manuscript to determine if it merits full external review. In addition to scientific criteria, the Editor will consider whether the article meets the structural requirements for the specific article type and the high quality of scientific presentation.
The Editor may consult other Editors or members of the Editorial Board for an initial evaluation. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.
The most common reasons for the editorial rejection at this stage are that a paper is:
- outside of the Aims and Scope of the journal
- a confirmation or duplication of published work in this or another species or system
- that it represents preliminary, incomplete, poorly designed, or purely descriptive studies lacking mechanistic insight into a scientific problem.
The Editor coordinates the assignment of reviewers and the review process for papers deemed suitable for full external review. In general, two to three expert reviewers in the field will provide a detailed evaluation.
Type of Peer Review
This journal employs blind review, whereby the referees remain anonymous throughout the process.
JTeC Editors follow a strict conflict of interest policy.
How the referee is selected
Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. We seek to assign referees who are scholarly, balanced, and timely in submitting evaluations. Reviewers are invited by email and asked to accept or decline if they are able to provide a review within 10-14 days. If they decline new potential reviewers are invited. All invited reviewers are provided an opportunity to make suggestions for alternative reviewers. Our database of reviewers is constantly being updated as we attempt to identify and maintain the highest quality reviewers. We request suggestions for referees from the author to aid in identifying people with relevant expertise. The Editor may invite the suggested referees or select reviewers independently. Authors may request to exclude particular referees if a conflict of interest is suspected.
Referee reports
Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:
- Is original, of high quality, novel, provides mechanistic insight, and follows scientific guidelines of the journal
- Is methodologically sound
- Has substantive results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
- Correctly references previous relevant work
- Follows appropriate ethical guidelines
Referees are not expected to correct or copy-edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process. If a paper is judged to be scientifically sound but inadequately presented, it may be accepted subject to the corresponding author agreeing to have the paper professionally copy-edited at his/her expense.
How long does the review process take?
Typically the time for handling a manuscript from submission to first decision is less than 6 weeks. We strive to be as fast as possible however it can take time to collect a sufficient number of high-quality evaluations, especially during summer months and holiday periods.
If reviewers agree to handle a manuscript in a timely manner but are delayed or fail to provide a review despite regular reminders from the journal the Editor may make a decision based on the completed reviews or a further opinion may be sought. Should the referees' reports contradict one another it may also be necessary to seek a further expert opinion. In such cases, the review process will take longer but the journal makes every effort to minimize the delay.
At the discretion of the Editor, revised manuscripts are returned, usually within 1 week of receipt, to the initial referees for evaluation. If the original reviewers of the manuscript are not willing to provide an opinion on the revised submission, alternative reviewers may be sought. In general, one round of revision is permitted for manuscripts deemed to have major issues. Subsequent rounds of review are usually considered by the Editor to correct relatively minor issues that can be quickly resolved.
Final Decision
Referees advise the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor's decision is final.
Publication ethics
Ethical standards for publication exist to ensure high-quality scientific publications, public trust in scientific findings, and that people receive credit for their work and ideas.
Article assessment
All manuscripts are subject to peer review and are expected to meet standards of academic excellence. If approved by the editor, submissions will be considered by peer reviewers, whose identities will remain anonymous to the authors.
Our Research Integrity team will occasionally seek advice outside standard peer review, for example, on submissions with serious ethical, security, biosecurity, or societal implications. We may consult experts and the academic editor before deciding on appropriate actions, including but not limited to recruiting reviewers with specific expertise, assessment by additional editors, and declining to further consider a submission.
Plagiarism
Authors must not use the words, figures, or ideas of others without attribution. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wording must be limited and be attributed or quoted in the text.
JTeC uses Turnitin to detect submissions that overlap with published and submitted manuscripts.
Manuscripts that are found to have been plagiarized from a manuscript by other authors, whether published or unpublished, will be rejected and the authors may incur sanctions. Any published articles may need to be corrected or retracted.
Duplicate submission and redundant publication
JTeC consider only original content, i.e. articles that have not been previously published, including in a language other than English. Articles based on content previously made public only on a preprint server, institutional repository, or in a thesis will be considered.
Manuscripts submitted to JTeC must not be submitted elsewhere while under consideration and must be withdrawn before being submitted elsewhere. Authors whose articles are found to have been simultaneously submitted elsewhere may incur sanctions.
If authors have used their own previously published work, or work that is currently under review, as the basis for a submitted manuscript, they must cite the previous articles and indicate how their submitted manuscript differs from their previous work. Reuse of the authors’ own words outside the Methods should be attributed or quoted in the text. Reuse of the authors’ own figures or substantial amounts of wording may require permission from the copyright holder and the authors are responsible for obtaining this.
JTeC will consider extended versions of articles published at conferences provided this is declared in the cover letter, the previous version is clearly cited and discussed, there is significant new content, and any necessary permissions are obtained.
Redundant publication, the inappropriate division of study outcomes into more than one article (also known as salami slicing), may result in rejection or a request to merge submitted manuscripts, and the correction of published articles. Duplicate publication of the same, or a very similar, article may result in the retraction of the later article and the authors may incur sanctions.
Citation manipulation
Authors whose submitted manuscripts are found to include citations whose primary purpose is to increase the number of citations to a given author’s work, or to articles published in a particular journal, may incur sanctions.
Editors and reviewers must not ask authors to include references merely to increase citations to their own or an associate’s work, to the journal, or to another journal they are associated with.
Fabrication and falsification
The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles that are found to have fabricated or falsified the results, including the manipulation of images, may incur sanctions, and published articles may be retracted.
Authorship and acknowledgements
All listed authors must have made a significant scientific contribution to the research in the manuscript, approved its claims, and agreed to be an author. It is important to list everyone who made a significant scientific contribution.
Anyone who contributed to the research or manuscript preparation, but is not an author, should be acknowledged with their permission.
Submissions by anyone other than one of the authors will not be considered.
Conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest (COIs, also known as ‘competing interests’) occur when issues outside research could be reasonably perceived to affect the neutrality or objectivity of the work or its assessment. This can happen at any stage in the research cycle, including during the experimentation phase, while a manuscript is being written, or during the process of turning a manuscript into a published article.
If unsure, declare a potential interest or discuss with the editorial office. Undeclared interests may incur sanctions. Submissions with undeclared conflicts that are later revealed may be rejected. Published articles may need to be re-assessed, have a corrigendum published, or in serious cases be retracted.
Conflicts of interest do not always stop work from being published or prevent someone from being involved in the review process. However, they must be declared. A clear declaration of all possible conflicts – whether they actually had an influence or not – allows others to make informed decisions about the work and its review process.
If conflicts of interest are found after publication, this may be embarrassing for the authors, the Editor and the journal. It may be necessary to publish a corrigendum or reassess the review process.
Conflicts include the following:
Financial — funding and other payments, goods and services received or expected by the authors relating to the subject of the work or from an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
Affiliations — being employed by, on the advisory board for, or a member of an organization with an interest in the outcome of the work
Intellectual property — patents or trademarks owned by someone or their organization
Personal — friends, family, relationships, and other close personal connections
Ideology — beliefs or activism, for example, political or religious, relevant to the work
Academic — competitors or someone whose work is critiqued
Authors
Authors must declare all potential interests in a ‘Conflicts of interest’ section, which should explain why the interest may be a conflict. If there are none, the authors should state “The author(s) declare(s) that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.” Submitting authors are responsible for coauthors declaring their interests.
Authors must declare current or recent funding (including article processing charges) and other payments, goods or services that might influence the work. All funding, whether a conflict or not, must be declared in the ‘Funding Statement’.
The involvement of anyone other than the authors who 1) has an interest in the outcome of the work; 2) is affiliated to an organization with such an interest; or 3) was employed or paid by a funder, in the commissioning, conception, planning, design, conduct, or analysis of the work, the preparation or editing of the manuscript, or the decision to publish must be declared.
Declared conflicts of interest will be considered by the editor and reviewers and included in the published article.
Editors and Reviewers
Editors and reviewers should decline to be involved with a submission when they
- Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
- Share or recently shared an affiliation with any author
- Collaborate or recently collaborated with any author
- Have a close personal connection to any author
- Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
- Feel unable to be objective
Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor.
Editors and reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.
Corrections and retractions
When errors are identified in published articles, the publisher will consider what action is required and may consult the editors and the authors’ institution(s).
Errors by the authors may be corrected by a corrigendum and errors by the publisher by an erratum.
If there are errors that significantly affect the conclusions or there is evidence of misconduct, this may require retraction or an expression of concern following the COPE Retraction Guidelines.
All authors will be asked to agree to the content of the notice.
An author name change after publication will be made to the article and any citing articles published by JTeC without requiring documentation, a corrigendum notice, or informing any other authors, following a request to the journal or the Research Integrity team.
