Publication Policy and Peer Review Process

The Journal of Advanced Vocational Information and Communication Technology (JAVICT) is committed to maintaining a fair, transparent, rigorous, and academically responsible editorial process. All submitted manuscripts are evaluated based on their relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, methodological rigor, technical quality, ethical compliance, and contribution to vocational and applied Information and Communication Technology (ICT).

1. Submission and Administrative Check

All manuscripts must be submitted through the JAVICT online submission system. After submission, the editorial team conducts an initial administrative check to ensure that:

• the manuscript follows the JAVICT Author Guidelines;
• the manuscript uses the required journal template;
• the submission metadata are complete;
• author names and affiliations are properly provided;
• figures, tables, references, and supplementary files are appropriately included;
• required declarations are provided where applicable; and
• the submitted files are suitable for further editorial evaluation.

Manuscripts that do not meet the basic submission requirements may be returned to the authors for correction before further evaluation.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

Manuscripts that pass the administrative check undergo an initial editorial assessment by the Editor-in-Chief, Managing Editor, or an assigned editor.

The initial screening considers:

• relevance to the Aims and Scope of JAVICT;
• relevance to vocational, applied, engineering, or industry-oriented ICT;
• originality and potential contribution;
• clarity of the research problem and objectives;
• adequacy of the research methodology;
• minimum scholarly and technical quality;
• completeness of manuscript presentation; and
• compliance with publication ethics.

3. Similarity and Originality Screening

All manuscripts submitted to JAVICT are screened for potential textual similarity using appropriate similarity-detection tools, including Turnitin and Plagiarism Checker X .

Similarity reports are evaluated contextually by the editorial team. Editorial decisions are not based solely on a numerical similarity score. Editors may consider the source, extent, pattern, attribution, and nature of textual overlap.

Similarity Detection Tools

4. Peer Review Process

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial and similarity screening may proceed to external peer review. JAVICT applies a single-blind peer-review model:

Reviewers are selected based on relevant expertise, academic or professional competence, suitability to evaluate the manuscript topic, independence from the submitted work, and absence of significant conflicts of interest.

5. Review Criteria

Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on relevant scholarly and technical criteria, including:

1. relevance to the aims and scope of JAVICT;
2. originality of the research;
3. significance of the contribution;
4. clarity of the research problem;
5. appropriateness of the methodology;
6. validity of experiments, implementation, or evaluation;
7. adequacy of data analysis;
8. technical rigor;
9. quality of results and discussion;
10. relationship to relevant previous studies;
11. clarity of tables, figures, equations, and technical presentation;
12. validity of conclusions;
13. practical relevance to vocational, engineering, industrial, or applied ICT contexts; and
14. compliance with research and publication ethics.

6. Editorial Decisions

Based on editorial assessment and reviewer reports, a manuscript may receive one of the following decisions:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor based on manuscript quality, reviewer comments, authors’ responses, ethical considerations, relevance to the journal, and compliance with JAVICT publication policies.

7. Revision Process

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit:

• a revised manuscript;
• a point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments; and
• a clear explanation of substantive revisions made to the manuscript.

When authors disagree with a reviewer recommendation, they should provide a clear academic justification supported by appropriate evidence or references. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional editorial or reviewer evaluation.

8. Conflicting Review Reports

When reviewer reports differ substantially, the responsible editor may independently evaluate the arguments, request clarification from reviewers, invite an additional reviewer, request further revision from the authors, or make an editorial decision based on the available scholarly evidence. Editorial decisions are not determined solely by counting reviewer recommendations.

9. Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to JAVICT must be treated as confidential documents. Editors and reviewers must not:

• disclose manuscript content to unauthorized parties;
• use unpublished information for personal benefit;
• use confidential information for competitive advantage;
• distribute manuscript files without authorization; or
• exploit unpublished research findings obtained through the review process.

10. Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any financial, professional, institutional, personal, academic, or other relationship that could reasonably affect their objectivity. A reviewer or editor should decline involvement when a significant conflict of interest exists.

11. Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, technical quality, originality, ethical compliance, relevance, and contribution to the journal’s field.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, personal relationships, commercial interests, or authors’ ability to pay publication charges.

12. Complaints and Appeals

Authors may submit a reasoned appeal when they believe that an editorial decision resulted from:

• a significant procedural error;
• a demonstrable factual misunderstanding; or
• substantial evidence that relevant information was overlooked.

An appeal should clearly identify the manuscript, explain the specific grounds for appeal, and provide relevant evidence. Disagreement with a reviewer recommendation alone does not automatically constitute valid grounds for appeal.

Complaints concerning editorial conduct, reviewer conduct, conflicts of interest, publication procedures, or suspected ethical concerns may be submitted through the official JAVICT Editorial Office contact channels.

Commitment to Editorial Integrity

JAVICT is committed to maintaining an editorial process that supports scholarly quality, academic integrity, fairness, confidentiality, transparency, and responsible publication practices. The journal continually evaluates its editorial policies to support trustworthy scholarly communication in vocational and applied Information and Communication Technology.