About the Journal

Focus and Scope

The Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Content (JTeC) is a peer-reviewed publication with original works by researchers, academicians, and practitioners, covering Computing Technologies and Creative Contents and their innovative applications.  This journal serves as a platform to promote the exchange of ideas from researchers around the world, as well as becoming a fertile ground for producing high-quality research. JTeC publishes one issue per year.

JTeC aims to provide a publication platform for high-quality research and innovation related to Computing, Computer Engineering Technology, and Multimedia Technology research fields. Areas relevant to the scope of the journal (but not limited to) are Artificial Intelligence (Artificial Intelligence, Embedded System, Signal and Image Processing and Robotics); Big Data (Big Data Architectures, Big Data Analytics, Data Warehousing, and Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery & Retrieval); New Media Technologies (Augmented and Virtual Reality, Animation, Multimedia Systems, and Social Computing); Security and Privacy (Information Security and Cryptography, Computer and Network Forensics, Trusted Computing and Wireless and Pervasive/Ubiquitous Computing Security) and Fundamental Research (Information Systems, Computer System Security, Software Engineering, Computer Systems, and Engineering, System Network, Interactive Multimedia Design, Computer Animation)

Peer Review Process

Peer Review Policy for Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Contents (JTeC)

The practice of peer review is to ensure that good and original work is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing that is carried out by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees, therefore, play a vital role in maintaining the high standard of articles published in the Journal of Computing Technologies and Creative Contents.

All manuscripts are peer-reviewed following the procedure outlined below:


Article types

JTeC publishes the following article types:

  • Regular research articles
  • Full-length Reviews

The various article types have different scope and formatting requirements. Please refer to the document ' Format requirements for JTeC article types' for detailed information.


Initial manuscript evaluation

The Editor first evaluates a manuscript to determine if it merits full external review. In addition to scientific criteria, the Editor will consider whether the article meets the structural requirements for the specific article type and the high quality of scientific presentation.

The Editor may consult other Editors or members of the Editorial Board for an initial evaluation. Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will be informed within 2 weeks of receipt.

The most common reasons for the editorial rejection at this stage are that a paper is:

  • outside of the Aims and Scope of the journal
  • a confirmation or duplication of published work in this or another species or system
  • that it represents preliminary, incomplete, poorly designed, or purely descriptive studies lacking mechanistic insight into a scientific problem.


The Editor coordinates the assignment of reviewers and the review process for papers deemed suitable for full external review. In general, two to three expert reviewers in the field will provide a detailed evaluation.


Type of Peer Review

This journal employs blind review, whereby the referees remain anonymous throughout the process.

JTeC Editors follow a strict conflict of interest policy.


How the referee is selected

Referees are matched to the paper according to their expertise. We seek to assign referees who are scholarly, balanced, and timely in submitting evaluations. Reviewers are invited by email and asked to accept or decline if they are able to provide a review within 10-14 days. If they decline new potential reviewers are invited. All invited reviewers are provided an opportunity to make suggestions for alternative reviewers. Our database of reviewers is constantly being updated as we attempt to identify and maintain the highest quality reviewers. We request suggestions for referees from the author to aid in identifying people with relevant expertise. The Editor may invite the suggested referees or select reviewers independently. Authors may request to exclude particular referees if a conflict of interest is suspected.


Referee reports

Referees are asked to evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Is original, of high quality, novel, provides mechanistic insight, and follows scientific guidelines of the journal
  • Is methodologically sound
  • Has substantive results which are clearly presented and support the conclusions
  • Correctly references previous relevant work
  • Follows appropriate ethical guidelines


Referees are not expected to correct or copy-edit manuscripts. Language correction is not part of the peer-review process. If a paper is judged to be scientifically sound but inadequately presented, it may be accepted subject to the corresponding author agreeing to have the paper professionally copy-edited at his/her expense.


How long does the review process take?

Typically the time for handling a manuscript from submission to first decision is less than 6 weeks. We strive to be as fast as possible however it can take time to collect a sufficient number of high-quality evaluations, especially during summer months and holiday periods.

If reviewers agree to handle a manuscript in a timely manner but are delayed or fail to provide a review despite regular reminders from the journal the Editor may make a decision based on the completed reviews or a further opinion may be sought. Should the referees' reports contradict one another it may also be necessary to seek a further expert opinion. In such cases, the review process will take longer but the journal makes every effort to minimize the delay.

At the discretion of the Editor, revised manuscripts are returned, usually within 1 week of receipt, to the initial referees for evaluation. If the original reviewers of the manuscript are not willing to provide an opinion on the revised submission, alternative reviewers may be sought. In general, one round of revision is permitted for manuscripts deemed to have major issues. Subsequent rounds of review are usually considered by the Editor to correct relatively minor issues that can be quickly resolved.


Final Decision

Referees advise the Editor, who is ultimately responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article. The Editor's decision is final.