Peer Review Process

Forum of Information Technology and Computer Science employs an online submission and double-blind review process. The submission and peer review of each article are managed through our system and assessed in accordance with EH's peer review policy. All parties involved, including the editorial board, reviewers, and authors, are required to adhere to these rigorous procedures.

Preliminary Review:
Submitted manuscripts undergo initial evaluation by the editorial board to assess compliance with EH's guidelines. This stage also includes a similarity check. Based on this review, the editor will make one of the following decisions:

1. Unsubmitted: If the paper contains minor errors that can be easily corrected, the author may be asked to address formatting issues or missing information before resubmission.

2. Rejected: Papers are rejected before entering the peer review stage if they do not align with the journal's scope or fail to adhere to reproductive health guidelines.

3. Assignment to Reviewers: Manuscripts passing the initial examination are assigned to one or more peer reviewers. Typically, at least two external peer reviewers are engaged for each manuscript.

Peer Review:
During this phase, peer reviewers evaluate whether the paper meets rigorous standards regarding alignment between objectives, research methods, evidence, references, conclusions, and data completeness. They also assess methodological accuracy, novelty, contribution to existing knowledge, and impact.

The time required for the review varies depending on the submission's quality and reviewer availability, ranging from a few weeks to several months. Authors can check their paper's status on the manuscript submission site.

Upon completing the review, reviewers typically recommend one of three options to the editor: acceptance as is (rare), minor revision, major revision, or rejection.

Revision:
Following the receipt of review results and recommendations, the editor forwards the manuscript to the author. For manuscripts marked as rejected, there is no revision option. In cases of major revisions, authors are granted 4-6 weeks to address reviewer comments and submit revised manuscripts, while minor revisions have a 1-2 week timeframe.

Revisions may include suggestions for proofreading by native speakers or subject-matter experts to ensure language quality. Authors are expected to implement reviewer and editorial board suggestions, providing point-by-point feedback where necessary. Authors may request an extension if more time is needed for revisions. Failure to respond or submit revisions within the allocated timeframe will result in withdrawal from publication consideration.

The editor reviews the revised manuscript to confirm that all reviewer comments have been addressed. In some cases, peer reviewers may be asked to review revisions to ensure proper handling of comments.

The revision process may be iterative until the editor is satisfied with the paper. Disapproval can still occur, even after multiple revisions, if comments are not adequately addressed. Occasionally, a new expert referee may be invited to review subsequent drafts, triggering another round of peer review. While reviewers provide recommendations, the final acceptance decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.

Decision:
The editorial board, guided by reviewer recommendations and their own input, makes the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript. Please note that the ultimate decision is vested in the Editor-in-Chief. Manuscripts approved for publication proceed to the production team for further processing.

Production:
Authors receive page proofs from the production team for confirmation and finalization of content. At this stage, authors sign the Copyright Notice and no further revisions are allowed. Failure to provide feedback on the page proofs within the stipulated timeframe implies approval of the version for publication.