Review Policy
Policy Statement
NEWTON: Networking and Information Technology applies peer review to assess the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, and relevance of research and review articles submitted for publication.
The review process is intended to support fair editorial decisions and help authors improve their manuscripts. Publication decisions are based on the quality and integrity of the work, its contribution to the field, and its alignment with the journal’s scope. Payment of publication fees does not influence the review outcome or guarantee acceptance.
Peer-Review Model
The journal uses a double-anonymous peer-review process. Author identities are withheld from reviewers, and reviewer identities are withheld from authors.
Authors must submit a separate title page containing their names, affiliations, and contact details. The manuscript provided for review must omit identifying information, including acknowledgments and other details that could unnecessarily reveal authorship. Self-citations should be written neutrally and must not be removed when they are necessary to understand the research.
The editorial team takes reasonable measures to preserve anonymity. However, complete anonymity cannot be guaranteed, particularly when work has been publicly presented, deposited as a preprint, or made identifiable through associated materials.
Initial Editorial Screening
All submissions undergo an initial assessment by the editorial team before external review. Screening considers:
- Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope.
- Compliance with submission requirements and manuscript preparation guidelines.
- Clarity of the research objectives and scholarly contribution.
- Basic methodological adequacy and the presence of an appropriate evaluation.
- Completeness of ethical declarations and supporting documentation.
- Potential plagiarism, redundant publication, or other research integrity concerns.
- Similarity reports, where used, support editorial assessment and do not independently establish plagiarism.
Manuscripts may be returned for technical corrections or declined without external review if they do not meet the journal’s requirements. Authors will be informed of the principal reasons for an editorial rejection.
Reviewer Selection
Manuscripts that pass initial screening are normally assessed by at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.
Reviewers are selected based on their knowledge of the manuscript’s topic, methodological competence, and ability to provide an impartial assessment. Individuals with relevant conflicts of interest must disclose them and may be excluded from the assignment.
Authors may suggest suitable reviewers or identify individuals they believe should not review their manuscript, with reasons. The editor retains full responsibility for reviewer selection and is not required to follow these suggestions.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are asked to assess:
- Originality and contribution. Whether the manuscript offers a clearly explained contribution beyond existing knowledge or practice.
- Relevance and research context. Whether the research problem is relevant to the journal and adequately situated within the literature.
- Methodological rigor. Whether the study design, data, procedures, and analytical methods are appropriate and sufficiently described.
- Evaluation and reproducibility. Whether experiments, system tests, datasets, code descriptions, configurations, and performance metrics provide adequate support for the claims.
- Results and interpretation. Whether the findings are clearly presented, accurately interpreted, and discussed in relation to relevant research.
- Limitations and conclusions. Whether limitations are acknowledged and conclusions remain proportionate to the evidence.
- Presentation and transparency. Whether the manuscript is logically organized and includes appropriate references, figures, tables, and declarations.
System-development manuscripts must include an evaluation suited to their objectives. Review articles must explain how relevant literature was identified, selected, and synthesized.
Reviewer Reports and Recommendations
Reviewers must provide constructive, specific, and professionally expressed comments. Reports should distinguish major scientific concerns from minor issues of presentation.
Reviewers may recommend:
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantive changes.
Minor revision: Limited changes are required before acceptance can be considered.
Major revision: Substantial improvements are needed before the manuscript can be reassessed.
Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication because of fundamental weaknesses, insufficient contribution, or other substantive reasons.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The handling editor makes the publication decision after considering the reports, the manuscript, and any relevant integrity concerns. Decisions are not determined solely by a majority vote among reviewers.
Editorial Decisions
The editor may accept the manuscript, request revision, or reject it. Where reviewer assessments differ substantially or important questions remain unresolved, the editor may seek an additional review or independent expert advice.
Decision letters will communicate the outcome and provide relevant reviewer comments. The editorial team may remove inappropriate language or confidential information from reports without altering their substantive scientific meaning.
Revisions and Reassessment
Authors submitting a revised manuscript must provide:
- A revised version of the manuscript.
- A point-by-point response to reviewer and editorial comments.
- An explanation of any requested changes that were not made.
- A marked version identifying revisions, when requested.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the changes. Further rounds of review may be required.
A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance. Authors who require additional time should contact the editorial office before the revision deadline.
Confidentiality and Responsible Use of Materials
Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence are confidential. Reviewers must not share submission materials, contact authors directly about the review, or use unpublished information for personal advantage.
Reviewers must obtain editorial permission before involving another person in an assessment. Any approved contributor must comply with the same confidentiality and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Manuscripts or confidential materials must not be uploaded to public generative AI systems or other third-party services without explicit editorial authorization and appropriate confidentiality safeguards. Reviewers remain responsible for the accuracy, originality, and reasoning of their reports.
Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence
Authors, reviewers, and editors must disclose interests relevant to the manuscript in accordance with the journal’s Conflict of Interest policy.
An editor with a relevant conflict must not select reviewers or make decisions on the manuscript. Submissions authored by editors or editorial board members will be handled by an independent, unconflicted editor and assessed under the same standards as other submissions.
Editorial decisions must remain independent of sponsorship, commercial relationships, institutional influence, and publication-fee payments.
Ethical Concerns During Review
Reviewers should report suspected plagiarism, fabrication, falsification, duplicate publication, unethical research, or manipulation of peer review confidentially to the editor, with supporting details where possible.
The journal may suspend manuscript processing while concerns are assessed under its policy on allegations of research misconduct. An allegation alone does not establish misconduct, and authors will be given an appropriate opportunity to respond.
Review Timelines
The editorial office will communicate relevant review and revision deadlines to reviewers and authors. Processing times may vary according to manuscript complexity, reviewer availability, the number of revision rounds, and the need to resolve technical or ethical concerns.
The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication within a fixed period.
Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned explanation and supporting evidence to the editorial office. Appeals should identify a substantive error, procedural concern, or misunderstanding that may have affected the decision.
Where practicable, an appeal will be assessed by an editor or adviser who was not responsible for the original decision. Disagreement with reviewer opinions alone does not automatically justify reversal of a decision.
Complaints about editorial conduct or the review process will be considered separately from the scientific merits of the manuscript.
Content Not Routinely Externally Reviewed
Editorials, corrections, retraction notices, and other publication notices ordinarily undergo editorial assessment rather than routine external peer review. Expert review may be requested when necessary.
The assessment process for post-publication comments and author responses is described in the journal’s Post-Publication Discussion policy.
Contact
Questions about manuscript assessment, review procedures, appeals, or complaints should be directed to the editorial office through the contact information provided on the journal website.
