All submissions are assessed by at least two independent experts in information systems, digital innovation, data science, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and related domains. Neither authors nor reviewers know each other's identity, so manuscripts are judged solely on their scientific merit.
Reviewers provide structured, constructive comments that help authors strengthen their work. Editors oversee every stage, ensure that decisions follow journal policy, and communicate outcomes clearly and promptly.
Review workflow
Six stages take a manuscript from initial screening to final publication.
Initial Evaluation
The editorial board checks that the submission aligns with INNOVATE's aims, scope, and author guidelines.
- Relevance to the journal's scope
- Originality and novelty of the contribution
- Manuscript structure and formatting
- Citation and referencing style
- Ethical compliance
- Similarity index
Manuscripts with a similarity index above 25% are rejected. Non-compliant submissions are returned for revision before peer review begins.
Assignment of Reviewers
At least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise are assigned; additional reviewers may be invited when needed.
- Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors
- Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers
- Authors must remove identifying information from the manuscript
- Reviewers have relevant scientific expertise
- No conflict of interest with the authors
- Objective and constructive evaluations
Reviewer assignment is typically completed within two weeks after initial screening.
Review Process
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts on scientific quality, methodology, and contribution to the field.
- Scientific quality
- Originality and innovation
- Methodological rigor
- Validity and reliability
- Relevance to information systems and innovation
- Clarity of presentation
- Contribution to theory and practice
Reviewers are given two to four weeks and recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, or rejection.
Editorial Decision
The Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision based on reviewer comments, editorial assessment, and policy compliance.
- Reviewer comments and recommendations
- Editorial assessment
- Compliance with journal policies and ethical standards
Authors receive the decision through the online system: accepted, minor revision, major revision, or rejected.
Revision Process
Authors revise the manuscript according to reviewer and editor comments and submit a response letter.
- Revised manuscript with highlighted changes
- Detailed response or rebuttal letter
- Two-week deadline for minor revisions
- Four-week deadline for major revisions
Major revisions may undergo an additional round of review by the original reviewers.
Publication
Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication through careful production work.
- Copyediting
- Proofreading
- Layout editing
- Final formatting
Publication ethics
The review process rests on confidentiality, fairness, and timely communication.
Confidentiality
All manuscripts are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, and staff must not disclose submission information except to authorized parties.
Objectivity & Impartiality
Manuscripts are evaluated on academic merit only. Reviewers provide constructive, professional feedback.
Timeliness
The review process is conducted efficiently, and authors are regularly informed of their submission status.
Plagiarism & Misconduct
Plagiarism, data fabrication, duplicate publication, and other unethical practices are strictly prohibited. All submissions are screened.