Guideline for Reviewing a Manuscript

Reviewers are expected to provide comprehensive evaluations by considering the following aspects:

1. Scope and Research Contribution

Reviewers should evaluate whether the manuscript aligns with the focus and scope of IJCITSM, particularly in cyber technology, information systems, IT service management, digital transformation, and related interdisciplinary fields. The evaluation should consider the originality, novelty, relevance, and significance of the research contribution, including its ability to advance existing knowledge in the related field.

2. Literature Review and Theoretical Foundation

Reviewers should examine whether the manuscript provides an appropriate theoretical foundation and a comprehensive discussion of previous studies. The literature review should demonstrate a clear research gap, establish research motivation, and support the objectives and contribution of the study.

3. Research Methodology

Reviewers should evaluate the appropriateness, transparency, and rigor of the research methodology. The assessment should consider the suitability of the research design, clarity of data collection procedures, appropriateness of analysis techniques, and reliability and validity of the research process.

The methodology should provide sufficient explanation to support the credibility, accuracy, and reproducibility of the research findings.

4. Results and Discussion

Reviewers should evaluate whether the results are presented clearly, accurately, and consistently with the research objectives and methodology. The assessment should consider whether the findings are supported by appropriate analysis and provide sufficient evidence to answer the research questions.

Reviewers should also assess whether the discussion provides meaningful interpretation by connecting the findings with previous studies, theoretical perspectives, and the identified research gap. The manuscript should demonstrate the significance of the findings and explain its contribution to advancing knowledge in the relevant field.

5. Managerial and Practical Implications

Reviewers should assess whether the manuscript provides meaningful implications for practitioners, organizations, policymakers, or other relevant stakeholders. The implications should be logically derived from the research findings and demonstrate how the study outcomes may support decision-making, improve existing practices, address practical challenges, or contribute to technological and organizational development.

6. Conclusion and Future Research Direction

Reviewers should evaluate whether the conclusion accurately summarizes the main findings and reflects the research objectives. The conclusion should be supported by the presented results and should not introduce new information beyond the scope of the study.

Reviewers should also consider whether the manuscript appropriately discusses research limitations and provides relevant recommendations for future research. Future research directions should be realistic, aligned with the study findings, and contribute to further academic development.

7. Manuscript Quality and Presentation

Reviewers should consider the overall structure, readability, and academic quality of the manuscript, including clarity of writing, organization of sections, consistency of terminology, accuracy of tables and figures, citation quality, and completeness of references.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality of all information obtained during the peer review process. Manuscripts, research data, unpublished findings, and review discussions must not be disclosed, shared, or used for personal advantage.

Reviewers should provide objective evaluations without personal bias and declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment. Reviewers should decline the invitation if they are unable to provide an independent assessment.

IJCITSM acknowledges the role of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in academic activities and requires that the use of this technology during the peer review process adheres to principles of confidentiality, research integrity, and responsible scientific practice.

Reviewers must ensure that the use of GenAI does not compromise manuscript confidentiality, unpublished research information, author identity, reviewer comments, or intellectual property rights. GenAI should only serve as supplementary assistance and must not replace the reviewer's independent analysis, critical evaluation, and academic judgment.

All review reports, recommendations, and comments submitted to the editor must represent the reviewer's own expert assessment. Further guidance is available in the journal Generative AI Policies.

After completing the evaluation, reviewers provide recommendations to the editor based on the overall quality, contribution, and readiness of the manuscript:

Accept
The manuscript meets academic standards and is suitable for publication without significant modification.

Minor Revision
The manuscript has sufficient quality and contribution but requires limited improvements before publication.

Major Revision
The manuscript requires substantial improvements in methodology, analysis, theoretical foundation, or discussion.

Reject
The manuscript does not meet publication standards due to limited contribution, insufficient originality, major methodological weaknesses, or ethical concerns.

Reviewer recommendations serve as important considerations in editorial decision-making; however, the final decision regarding manuscript acceptance or rejection remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief and editorial team.

IJCITSM is committed to maintaining a transparent, fair, and ethical peer review system that supports high-quality scholarly publishing. Through collaboration between editors and reviewers, IJCITSM ensures that published articles meet international academic standards and contribute meaningful knowledge to the fields of cyber and IT service management.