Editorial Workflow

Peer Review Process

All manuscripts are treated as confidential. JMIS uses a single-blind peer-review process: the authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

Reviewers and editors must treat all submitted manuscripts, supplementary files, and review materials as confidential and must not upload any part of them to an external generative AI or automated system where confidentiality cannot be assured. Scholarly judgment and the final editorial decision must remain under human responsibility. Detailed requirements are provided in the Generative AI and AI-Assisted Technologies Policy.

They are peer-reviewed by two or more anonymous reviewers selected by the editor and section editors. The associate editor selects at least two referees who have expertise in the area associated with the submitted manuscript. Reviewers are typically chosen to be unrelated to the author and should not be part of the editorial team. If the review results from the reviewers are in conflict, the manuscript will be sent to the third reviewer.

The final recommendation on the manuscript is made by the editorial board.

The corresponding author is notified as soon as possible of the editor's decision to accept, reject, or request revision of manuscripts. When the final revised manuscript is completely acceptable according to the JMIS format and criteria, it is scheduled for publication in the next available issue.

The peer review process takes usually 4 to 8 weeks after the manuscript submission.

Review consideration

1. Academic aspects

• a) Does the content of the manuscript match the scope of the journal?
• b) Is the research original, novel and important to the field?
• c) Is the thought process clear? Is clear language used?
• d) Is the writing of sufficient quality to allow the above points to be evaluated?
• e) Will it impact the thoughts or actions of its readers?

2. Quality Level of manuscript

• a) Is the manuscript appropriately organized?
• b) Is the manuscript an appropriate length?
• c) Is the title informative?
• d) Does the abstract give a clear summary of the results of the manuscript?
• e) Does the introduction summarize the fundamentals, give a critical evaluation of previous research on the topic, and state the objectives?
• f) Is the description of the methods and/or the experimental work adequate?
• g) Do the references cover recent and past work in the field, including papers reported in other journals of the field?
• h) Are the number and the quality of the figures and the tables suitable?
• i) Is the conclusion comprehensive?
• j) Is the manuscript correct in grammar?

Adopted on June 1, 2014

Revised on September 15, 2026