About the Journal
Focus and Scope
Examples of research areas covered by the journal include:
Analysis and design of algorithms, data structures, computational complexity, computational algebra, computational aspects of combinatorics and graph theory, computational biology, computational geometry, computational robotics, the mathematical aspects of programming languages, artificial intelligence, computational learning, databases, information retrieval, cryptography, networks, distributed computing, parallel algorithms, and computer architecture
Information System Planning, Information System Management, Information System Quality, Information System Development, Knowledge Management Systems, Data Warehouse, Data Mining, IT Entrepreneurship, Data models and process models, social network analysis, mobile and distributed information system, organization transformation through information systems, Impact analysis of information systems
Software Techniques, Software Requirements, Software Design, Software Configuration and management, software process and quality, real-time software engineering, embedded software design, software testing, service-oriented architecture.
Application of ICT
Health Informatics, Bioinformatics, Cheminformatics, Other applications of ICT, the impact of ICT application, ICT in society
Peer Review Process
IJIC uses Plagiarism Detection Software – Turnitin® to screen for plagiarism before publication. This journal operates a conventional single-blind reviewing policy in which the reviewer's name is always concealed from the submitting authors. Authors should present their papers honestly without fabrication, falsification, plagiarism or inappropriate data manipulation. Submitted papers are evaluated by anonymous referees based on knowledge contribution, originality, relevance and presentation. Papers will be sent for anonymous review by at least two (2) reviewers who will either be members of the Editorial Board or others of similar standing in the field. In order to shorten the review process and respond quickly to authors, the Editors may triage a submission and come to a decision without sending the paper for external review. The Editor shall inform the authors of the results of the review in less than 10 weeks. The Editors’ decision is final and no correspondence can be entered into concerning manuscripts considered unsuitable for publication in this journal. All correspondence, including notification of the Editors’ decision and requests for revisions, will be sent by email.
Submission of a manuscript to the Journal implies that no part of the manuscript has been previously published in any language in a permanent archive, or the whole manuscript or any part of the manuscript is being considered for publication by another journal, or it violates anyone's copyrights or any other rights. Reproduction of tables and figures from previously published articles must accompany written permission from the copyright holder(s) and should be provided at the time of manuscript submission. Submission of preliminary or inconclusive data is strongly discouraged. However, authors reporting high-impact conclusive preliminary data leading to the opening of new research fields are welcomed. Authors should be prepared to make available any article cited within the references as in press if requested by the editorial office.
The corresponding author is responsible for obtaining permission for manuscript submission from all co-authors, and for ensuring that all co-authors are in complete agreement with the contents of the manuscript and its authorship. It is also assumed that authors have complied with all ethical and privacy guidelines and/or legislation concerning the submitted work particularly related to the use of human or animal subjects and cloning research. If the work is multidisciplinary, all collaborators must ensure that they have appropriate measures in place to check the accuracy of their part of the data. The corresponding/senior author has the overall responsibility for the accuracy of the data presented in the manuscript. However, each author also has direct responsibility for the contents of the paper. Editors have the right to accept or reject an article, solely on merit.
Submission of a manuscript to the Journal implies that the author(s) fully agree to and understand the terms and conditions, and accept the policies of the Journal described under the Information for Authors at the time of manuscript submission.
Manuscript Submissions: Authors must submit manuscripts to International Journal of Innovative Computing in electronic form through this website.
After the submission has entered our tracking system, the corresponding author receives an e-mail acknowledging receipt and providing the manuscript number. Authors are asked to include the manuscript number in all correspondence regarding the paper.
Before publication, each manuscript submitted to the Journal undergoes a thorough and rigorous peer-review. Final acceptance for all manuscripts is based on quality, impact, and originality of research. We aim to complete the whole review process within 21 days. To expedite the review process, authors are encouraged to suggest up to six expert reviewers (provide full contact details and email addresses) for their manuscript and may also request a specific individual to be excluded from the review process (based on conflict of interest). Suggested reviewers should not be past or present research collaborators of any of the authors and should not be from the author's host institutions. The Editors will give consideration to the author's suggestions; however, their decision to choose or exclude a reviewer is independent of these suggestions and is final.
Manuscript review is undertaken in the following steps:
- Each manuscript undergoes an initial internal editorial review to ensure that the manuscript is appropriate for the Journal. The authors are notified of the outcome within 24-48 hours of manuscript submission. Note that all contact with our office regarding the manuscript will be done via e-mail.
- Manuscripts that do not conform to the scope or style of the Journal, are of insufficient interest and quality, or those that are not clearly written, are either rejected or are returned to the authors for a further revision.
- On passing the internal editorial review, an Area Editor (AE) appropriate to handle the review will be appointed. The office then contacts the AE to let him/her know that(s)he will be handling the manuscript. Assuming the AE accepts the assignment, the paper is considered in review (status R) at this point.
- The manuscripts are then sent to 2-4 independent external expert reviewers.
- Once all reviewers have returned their reports, a decision to accept, reject or revise a manuscript is made based on the reviewer's comments and the editorial judgment.
- If applicable the authors have conveyed the reviewer's comments and asked to answer any criticisms. In the case of substantial criticisms by a reviewer, the article may be sent back to the concerned reviewer for a second review.
- Best efforts are made to evaluate arguments given by the reviewers and the authors before reaching a final decision which rests with the Editor and is made as rapidly as possible.
Only under exceptional circumstances, if the authors have compelling reasons that their manuscript merits immediate publication, it is possible to arrange a rapid review of the manuscript within 5 working days. Please make a case for this in the cover letter.
Members of the Editorial Board occasionally receive submissions directly from authors. In such cases, the editor will ask the author to resubmit the paper to the office through our website. This procedure ensures that the office will have the opportunity to access the manuscript for proper processing and tracking throughout the review process.
Papers authored by Editorial Board members:
Papers authored by Editorial Board members are subject to the same anonymous peer review process as other papers. Submissions to the journal authored by the CE will be directed to two other editors, who will oversee the review process.
Status Changes. Once the Review Editor has obtained reviewer reports and made a decision on a manuscript, the author receives an email informing him/her of the decision. Anonymous reviewer reports are generally included, along with the AE decision. The various status designations used by the office are discussed below. Note the distinctions among the following statuses: rejected, in revision, accepted pending minor revision.
- Acceptance (A). The reviewing editor generates an acceptance letter through the web-based system. This goes to the corresponding author via e-mail. In a follow-up step, the office contacts the author for .doc files to launch the production process.
- In revision (C). When an author is asked to revise a paper there is no guarantee that the revised paper will be accepted for publication. Usually, in fact, such revised papers must again be refereed. The editor's letter should make this clear.
The author receives reviewer reports as part of the editor's e-mail requesting revisions. The e-mail contains a link that the author may use to submit the revised version directly into our web-based system. Also, a deadline of no longer than six months for the revision will be stated.
- Accepted pending minor revision (PA). Unlike the one that is "in revision," a paper that is PA Â is more likely to be accepted by the journal as long as the author(s) makes the changes specified. The revision is minor; no substantial changes are necessary in order to make the paper acceptable. The author receives a decision letter and reviewer reports. The letter may state whether the editor intends that the revised paper will be sent back to the reviewers or not.
- Rejection (RJ). The editor's letter should leave no doubt as to the status of the paper. The author receives a rejection letter and may also get reviewer reports.
- In review (R). The paper is with the CE, or with the AE who is handling the review process. Reviewers are usually contacted and asked to send reports.
- Withdrawn (W). An author can withdraw a paper. The AE Â and the CE must be notified. A paper is also considered withdrawn when an author fails to revise a paper within a reasonable amount of time. The office asks authors to revise and resubmit papers within six months. The decision to close a file out is made jointly by the office, the AE, and the CE. Files are never closed without first giving the author ample opportunity to submit a revision.
Reports. Every three months, the CE sends the managing Editors (ME) and AE a report showing all papers in process, all papers assigned to each AE, and papers that have remained in one status for an unusually long time.Â Status updates on all papers that have been in review for three months or longer (flagged) have to be prepared by the AEs. The AE is to contact the reviewer to see if he intends to complete the review. If possible, the editor should indicate approximately when the review will be completed. The CE and ME will decide if these papers should be sent to other reviewers. If a paper has gone back to an author for revision (C or PA) and the editor has not received the revision though six months have passed, the AE is to contact the author to see if the author intends to complete the revision.
Open Access Policy
This journal provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge.