Peer Review

JETC applies a double-blind peer review process, ensuring that both reviewers and authors remain anonymous. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, selected from recognized international and local experts in the relevant research fields. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the work objectively and thoroughly.

Decision on the Manuscript

Based on the reviewers' comments, the editors make one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without changes: The manuscript proceeds to the next editorial stage without additional revisions.
  • Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript is suitable for publication after specific minor corrections.
  • Accept with major revisions (conditional acceptance): The manuscript is potentially publishable but requires substantial changes.
  • Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication and will not be reconsidered even after revision.

The editorial team aims to make an initial decision within 25 working days of submission, though the review process duration may vary depending on circumstances.

Peer Review Procedure 

Articles are accepted for review only through the journal's online submission system.

  1. The Editor-in-Chief conducts an initial screening to determine whether the manuscript aligns with the aims and scope of the journal.
  2.  If the manuscript meets the journal’s aims and scope, the Editor-in-Chief forwards it to the Technical Editor for plagiarism and AI-generated content checks. After this check, the Technical Editor returns the manuscript to the Editor-in-Chief to initiate the review process.
  3. The Editor-in-Chief and the Section Editors select qualified experts in the relevant field for double-blind peer review.
  4. The Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, and the Executive Editor for the “Mathematics” section remove author information from the manuscript before sending it to reviewers.
  5. If the manuscript does not align with the journal’s aims and scope, the Editor-in-Chief returns it without proceeding to peer review.
  6. The Section Editor, Editor-in-Chief, and Mathematics Executive Editor communicate with reviewers in their fields and send the manuscript for evaluation.
  7. At least two reviewers are assigned to each manuscript.
  8. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise and scientific experience in the relevant subject areas. To expand the reviewer pool, authors with academic degrees and relevant experience are invited to complete a questionnaire indicating their willingness to serve as reviewers for future JETC submissions.
  9. Reviewers are given 15 working days to complete the review. If necessary, and upon request, the review deadline may be extended.
  10. Reviewers are reminded that submitted manuscripts are confidential and subject to copyright, and must not be uploaded to any AI-based databases.
  11. The Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, and Mathematics Executive Editor forward the reviewers' comments and recommendations anonymously to the author(s), without revealing any personal information.
  12. If minor revisions are required, the responsible editors return the manuscript to the author(s) for revision. In such cases, the manuscript must be resubmitted within 10 working days, and authors must provide clear responses to each reviewer comment.
  13. If authors do not return the revised manuscript within 10 working days, they may resubmit the manuscript as a new submission. In this case, the editors will treat the manuscript as newly submitted.
  14. If major revisions are required, the manuscript is returned to the author(s) for further revision. The revised version must be submitted within 20 working days, and authors must respond to each reviewer comment in detail.
  15. If authors fail to submit the revised manuscript within 20 working days, they may submit it again as a new manuscript. The editors will then treat it as a new submission.
  16. If authors disagree with the reviewers’ comments, they have the right to submit a reasoned response to the editorial board. The manuscript may then be reconsidered or forwarded to the editorial board for a final decision.
  17. If the author refuses to revise the manuscript, they must notify the editorial team in writing of their decision to withdraw the article.
  18. After the review process, the Editor-in-Chief, or the editorial board if necessary, makes the final decision on the manuscript. The responsible or Editor-in-Chief notifies the author(s) of the decision.
  19. In case of unresolved conflict between the author and the reviewers regarding the manuscript content, the Editor-in-Chief addresses the issue during an editorial board meeting. If disagreement persists, the final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
  20. The editorial board does not enter into discussion with authors about its decisions.
  21. All reviews are stored in the editorial archive for three years and may be provided to the Committee for Control in the Field of Education and Science of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan upon request.

Peer Review Criteria

  • Relevance: The research should present significant new findings in computer science, infocommunication, or applied mathematics.
  • Literature Review: A thorough, critical review with a clear identification of research gaps.
  • Methodology: Valid and clearly described methodology, tools, and data collection/analysis.
  • Results and Discussion: Clear presentation, high-quality data use and analysis, practical implications.
  • Contribution: Strong argumentation and contribution to existing knowledge and practice.
  • Style: Clear, coherent, academic-technical writing.
  • Ethics: Adherence to ethical research standards.