Peer Review Policy

1. Principles of Peer Review

JITFCC is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a fair, rigorous, timely, and transparent peer review process. Peer review helps ensure the quality, originality, scientific validity, and ethical integrity of all published research.

All research manuscripts are evaluated solely on their academic merit, methodological soundness, originality, significance, and relevance to the journal's scope, regardless of the authors' nationality, ethnicity, gender, institutional affiliation, or personal beliefs.

The journal follows the ethical principles and best practices recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

2. Initial Editorial Assessment

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial editorial screening before external peer review. During this stage, the Handling Editor or Editor-in-Chief evaluates whether the manuscript:

       ·         Falls within the journal's aims and scope;
·         Meets the journal's submission and formatting requirements;
·         Demonstrates sufficient scholarly quality and originality;
·         Complies with ethical and research integrity standards;
·         Contains no obvious evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, or other forms of publication misconduct.

Manuscripts that fail to satisfy these requirements may be rejected without external review (desk rejection). This enables authors to seek publication elsewhere without unnecessary delay. JITFCC aims to complete the initial editorial assessment promptly after submission.

3. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening are sent for external peer review. JITFCC operates a double-blind peer review system in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review process. Normally, each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent experts with appropriate subject expertise. Additional reviewers may be invited where necessary, particularly when reviewers' recommendations differ substantially or when specialist expertise is required. Reviewers are asked to assess manuscripts on the basis of:

       ·         Originality and novelty;
·         Scientific or scholarly merit;
·         Methodological rigor;
·         Accuracy and validity of results;
·         Quality of analysis and interpretation;
·         Clarity of presentation;
·         Adequacy of references;
·         Ethical compliance;
·         Significance and contribution to the field.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek additional expert opinions whenever necessary before reaching a final editorial decision. JITFCC strives to complete peer review as efficiently as possible; however, review times may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript.

4. Editorial Decisions and Independence

Editorial decisions are made independently by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor after careful consideration of the reviewers' reports, the manuscript's scholarly merit, and the journal's editorial standards. Reviewer recommendations are advisory rather than binding. The final decision rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.

Editorial decisions generally fall into one of the following categories:

Accept – The manuscript is accepted for publication without further revisions.
Minor Revision – The manuscript requires limited revisions before acceptance.
Major Revision – Substantial revisions are required, after which the manuscript may undergo further editorial assessment or additional peer review.
Reject with Resubmission Invited – The manuscript has potential but requires extensive changes that warrant submission as a new manuscript.
Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication because of significant scientific, methodological, ethical, or editorial concerns.

JITFCC reserves the right to reject a manuscript at any stage if evidence of plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, or other forms of publication misconduct is identified.

5. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision should submit a revised manuscript within the timeframe specified by the editorial office. A revised submission should include:

       ·         a clean revised manuscript;
·         a version highlighting the changes made (where requested); and

a detailed response letter explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed, or providing a clear justification where a recommendation has not been adopted.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Failure to submit revisions within the requested period, without prior communication with the editorial office, may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from further consideration.

Appeals against Editorial Decisions

Authors who believe that an editorial decision was based on a factual error, misunderstanding, or procedural irregularity may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief. Appeals should provide a clear scientific justification supported by appropriate evidence. Mere disagreement with reviewers' opinions is not sufficient grounds for an appeal. The Editor-in-Chief may seek additional independent reviews or consult members of the Editorial Board before reaching a final decision. The outcome of the appeal is final. JITFCC does not consider repeated appeals regarding the same editorial decision unless substantial new evidence becomes available.

Responsibilities of Reviewers

Peer reviewers play a vital role in maintaining the quality, integrity, and credibility of scholarly publishing. Their evaluations assist editors in making informed editorial decisions and help authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to conduct reviews fairly, objectively, and professionally while maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and confidentiality.

a- Acceptance of Review Invitations

Reviewers should accept a review invitation only if they:

       ·         Possess appropriate expertise in the manuscript's subject area;
·         Can provide an objective and impartial assessment;
·         Have no actual or potential conflict of interest; and
·         Are able to complete the review within the requested timeframe.

If a reviewer is unable to complete the review or believes that another expert would be more suitable, they should promptly notify the editorial office.

b- Objectivity and Constructive Evaluation

Reviews should be objective, evidence-based, and respectful. Reviewers should evaluate the scholarly quality of the manuscript without regard to the authors' nationality, gender, ethnicity, institutional affiliation, career stage, or personal beliefs. Review comments should be constructive, specific, and designed to help authors improve their work. Personal criticism or inappropriate language is unacceptable.

c- Scientific and Scholarly Assessment

Reviewers should assess, as appropriate:

       ·         The originality and significance of the research;
·         The clarity of the research objectives;
·         The appropriateness of the study design, methodology, and analysis;
·         The validity and reliability of the results;
·         The accuracy of the interpretation and conclusions;
·         The relevance and completeness of the literature cited;
·         Compliance with applicable ethical standards; and
·         The overall contribution of the manuscript to its field.

Reviewers should clearly explain the reasons for their recommendations and distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions.

d- Identification of Ethical Concerns

Reviewers should promptly inform the editor if they suspect plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;

duplicate or redundant publication; data fabrication, falsification, or image manipulation; unethical research involving humans; inappropriate authorship or undisclosed conflicts of interest; or any other potential breach of publication ethics. They should report such concerns confidentially to the editorial office and should not investigate the matter independently.

e- Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to submit their reports within the agreed review period. If circumstances prevent timely completion of the review, the reviewer should inform the editorial office as soon as possible so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

f- Recommendation to Editors

Reviewers provide independent expert recommendations to support editorial decision-making. Their recommendations are advisory and do not determine the final outcome of the manuscript. Editorial decisions are made solely by the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned Handling Editor after considering all reviewer reports, editorial policies, and the overall merits of the submission.

g- Confidentiality and Reviewer Ethics

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are treated as confidential documents throughout the peer review process. Editors, reviewers, and editorial staff must not disclose, discuss, or use any unpublished information contained in a manuscript for personal, academic, or commercial advantage. Manuscripts may only be shared with individuals directly involved in the editorial and peer review process and only with the approval of the handling editor.

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, professionally, and respectfully. Reviews should be based solely on the scientific quality, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and relevance of the manuscript. Personal criticism of authors or discriminatory, defamatory, or inappropriate comments are unacceptable.

h- Conflict of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must disclose any actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that could influence—or reasonably appear to influence—their impartiality. Such conflicts may arise from financial interests, personal relationships, academic competition, institutional affiliations, collaborative relationships, or any other circumstance that may compromise objective assessment.

Individuals with a conflict of interest must decline the review assignment or editorial handling of the manuscript. Editors will assign the manuscript to an independent reviewer or editor to ensure a fair and unbiased evaluation.

Special Issues and Editorial Board Submissions

Manuscripts submitted to Special Issues or by members of the Editorial Board, Editors, or Editor-in-Chief are subject to the same editorial standards and independent peer review procedures as all other submissions. Editorial status does not provide any preferential treatment during review or publication.

Editors who are authors or have a conflict of interest with a submitted manuscript are excluded from all editorial decisions relating to that submission. An independent editor with no competing interests will oversee the peer review process and make the final editorial recommendation.

Peer Review Integrity and Misconduct

The journal is committed to maintaining the integrity, fairness, and transparency of the peer review process. Any attempt to manipulate peer review, including the submission of fabricated reviewer identities, fraudulent reviewer reports, reviewer impersonation, undisclosed conflicts of interest, coercive citation, citation cartels, citation stacking, breaches of confidentiality, or any other unethical practice, is considered serious misconduct.

Where evidence of peer review manipulation or misconduct is identified, the journal may reject or withdraw the manuscript, suspend the review process, notify the authors' institutions or relevant organizations where appropriate, and take further corrective actions in accordance with established publication ethics standards.

Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors must not upload, submit, or disclose any part of a confidential manuscript to publicly available or third-party artificial intelligence (AI) systems that may retain, store, or use submitted content for training or other purposes without the journal's explicit authorization.

AI-assisted tools may be used only for limited editorial support, such as improving language, grammar, or readability of reviewer reports, provided that manuscript confidentiality is fully protected and no confidential content is disclosed to unauthorized systems. Reviewers and editors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, integrity, confidentiality, and scholarly judgment reflected in their evaluations. AI tools must not replace independent critical assessment, editorial decision-making, or reviewer expertise.