"Emika: Journal of Technology and Artificial Intelligence" employs a rigorous and meticulous double-blind peer-review process for all submitted manuscripts. Each paper submitted for publication undergoes thorough evaluation by two or more experts possessing similar competence to the author. This meticulous review process aims to assess the academic rigor and suitability of the manuscript for publication, upholding the highest standards of quality and bolstering the credibility of the journal's content.
The peer review process at "Emika: Journal of Technology and Artificial Intelligence" entails the following stages:
Submission of Manuscript: Authors submit their manuscripts through the online platform facilitated by the Open Journal System (OJS). Recognizing the convenience of authors, temporary submission via email is also accepted.
Editorial Office Assessment: Upon submission, the manuscript undergoes a comprehensive assessment by the editorial team at "Emika: Journal of Technology and Artificial Intelligence". This initial evaluation gauges the manuscript's alignment with the journal's focus and scopes, adherence to author guidelines, and overall composition. Furthermore, the assessment includes an appraisal of the manuscript's quality, identifying any major methodological issues. Manuscripts that meet these criteria advance to a Turnitin plagiarism check before proceeding to peer review.
Review by the Editor-in-Chief: The Editor-in-Chief evaluates the manuscript's relevance, originality, significance, and suitability for the journal. Manuscripts found unsuitable may be rejected at this stage.
Invitation to Reviewers: The handling editor extends invitations to reviewers who possess expertise and research interests that align with the manuscript's subject matter. Peer review at "Emika: Journal of Technology and Artificial Intelligence" is facilitated by an esteemed panel of experts spanning digital business and economics. This process adheres to the principles of double-blind peer review, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers.
Response from Reviewers: Reviewers assess the invitation based on their expertise, conflicts of interest, and availability. They may recommend alternative reviewers if they decline the invitation.
Conducting the Review: Reviewers dedicate focused time to meticulously assess the manuscript. Initial readings form an initial impression, and if substantial issues are identified, the manuscript may face rejection without further review. Alternatively, reviewers conduct multiple readings, crafting detailed point-by-point evaluations. Reviews are then submitted to the journal, alongside recommendations for acceptance, rejection, or revisions, categorized as major or minor.
Journal Evaluation: The Editor-in-Chief and handling editor consider all returned reviews before making a comprehensive decision. In cases where reviews diverge significantly, an additional reviewer may be engaged to ensure a well-rounded perspective.
Communication of Decision: The author receives a decision email from the editor, accompanied by anonymized reviewer comments. This constructive feedback guides authors in addressing necessary revisions. Reviewers also receive communication regarding the review outcome.
Final Steps: If accepted, the manuscript proceeds to copy-editing. Manuscripts requiring revision may be rejected, or authors may be asked to undertake major or minor revisions. Author revisions are guided by insightful reviewer feedback. Following revisions, authors resubmit their manuscripts. Reviewers may receive revised versions, particularly for major revisions. For minor revisions, the handling editor might oversee the follow-up review.
Upon satisfactory revision, the editor deems the manuscript accepted. Drawing from peer review feedback, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final publication decision. The review process generally spans 1 to 4 weeks. Accepted papers are published online and are made accessible as downloadable PDF files.
