Editorial Policies

Editorial policies and research ethics

1. Open access policy

All articles published by the DecisionTech Review journal are open-access, making them freely available without subscription or restriction. DecisionTech Review adheres to the DOAJ definition of open access.

2. Copyright and license 

Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons CC BY-NC 4.0 License that permits the sharing and adaptation of the material as long as appropriate credit is given, a link to the license is provided, and all changes are indicated. More information about this license can be found here.

3. Archiving policy

All articles published in DecisionTech Review are archived in CLOCKSS, LOCKSS, and the National Library of Estonia.

4. Advertisement policy

We maintain a strict in-house advertisement policy. Our advertisements are limited to those directly related to our products and services. We do not accept third-party or external advertisements to ensure our content remains relevant and beneficial to our audience. All in-house advertisements are carefully selected to align with our mission and enhance the user experience.

5. Article Processing Charges (APCs)

Fees or charges will not be applied for article processing and/or publication in the journal.

6. Publishing Policies

We guarantee the publication of high-quality content created using transparent and trusted research practices. We adhere to all guidelines and best publication practices defined by the Committee on Publication Ethics. (COPE).

a) Authorship

DecisionTech Review requires that all authors listed in the manuscripts have been actively involved in the research process and article creation. It is recommended that the corresponding author, project leader, or institution avoid including individuals who did not contribute to the research output (gift authors), exclude those who did or include names whose role has not yet been determined (ghost authors). It is strongly recommended that authorship be made before the project is written to prevent any potential conflicts.

Before considering a manuscript for publication, it is essential to define the roles of the corresponding author and the order of authors. The corresponding author will be the primary communication point throughout the evaluation, production, and post-publication processes, as the Editorial Office will contact them directly.

A Contribution Statement must be included with the manuscript, in which the roles of each author are delineated according to the CRediT taxonomy. The information above will be published in conjunction with the complete text. Should any individual whose contributions are not reflected in the Taxonomy of Contributions names be included, they may be listed in the Acknowledgements section.

Suppose an author requests the exclusion of their name from a manuscript or even inclusion before or after its publication. In that case, a formal declaration letter must be submitted to the Editorial Office. All authors must sign this letter, and the reasons for inclusion or exclusion must be clearly articulated. The Editorial Office will investigate this request and provide information regarding the decision and subsequent steps.

b) Complaints

In the event of an allegation of misconduct or questionable practice, the Editorial Office must be informed at the pre- or post-publication stage. We will adhere to the Core Practices of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) in addressing any ethical issue.

c) Conflict of interest

A Conflict of Interest (COI) is when authors have personal, academic, or financial relationships with third parties that could influence the content of research work submitted for publication. Upon submission of any manuscript, authors must complete the COI Statement, wherein all potential conflicts of interest are to be disclosed, should they exist. In this statement, the authors are required to provide the following information:

  • Any institution that receives resources, whether directly or indirectly, for the completion of the research work is required to disclose this information.
  • Financial relationships with entities that provided support for the research project.
  • Additionally, the disclosure should include any patents or copyrights, whether pending, issued, licensed, or receiving royalties, that are related to the research work.
  • Personal relationships with individuals who have the potential to influence the content of the research.

The following examples illustrate the format of a conflict of interest (COI) statement:

  • The author has received benefits from the “institution in question”.
  • The author has a relationship with the “institution in question”, which may be of a specific nature.

In the absence of a conflict of interest, the author is required to declare the following:

  • The author(s) certify that no conflict of interest exists.

d) Research data, reproducibility, and transparency

It is recommended that authors make the data underlying their research available for review. Our policy is to make all scientific data open access since we follow the Guidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data defined by the European Commission . The data-sharing process can occur in the following ways:

  • Depositing data in a public repository. The Registry of Research Data Repositories can help select a platform to host the data. The link(s) to access the data should be included in the manuscript.
  • Data as supplementary material. Authors can submit supplementary files containing relevant data to share during submission. These files will be available during peer review and published with the manuscript's full text.
  • Data on request. Before publication, editors or reviewers may ask authors for research data.

Citations to research data should appear in the full text in the reference section. Authors need to follow the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles to provide the correct citation and referencing of the data.

e) Statement of data consent

We encourage authors to submit a data statement to make science more transparent. Examples:

  • The data generated during this study is available at (Data URL).
  • The data has been included in the manuscript.
  • The data generated during the development of this study has been published as supplementary material.
  • The data generated during the development of this study cannot be freely available due to restrictions imposed by the restrictor.

f) Policies for studies involving human or animal subjects

Before submitting a manuscript with human or animal subjects, consider the following:

  • Get informed consent from all participants before starting the study.
  • Participants must be told what the research is about, how it will be done, the risks and benefits, and their rights.
  • Consent forms should be written in language the target population can understand and include contact information for the authors and relevant review boards.
  • People must be able to participate in the study if they want to. They should be told that they can leave without any consequences.
  • Don't force people to take part in your study.
  • Authors must keep participants' data confidential, including any personal information collected during the study.
  • Anonymize data to protect participants' privacy.
  • If there are exceptions to confidentiality, tell the participants in advance.
  • Researchers should identify and reduce risks to participants, including physical, mental, social, and economic risks.
  • If the research involves risks, authors must explain why and take steps to reduce them.
  • An ethics committee should approve research protocols to ensure risks are properly managed.
  • Treat participants with respect, dignity, and sensitivity to their cultural backgrounds.
  • Deception or manipulation of participants should be justified and kept to a minimum.
  • Tell participants what happened after the study. Give them information about the study's results.
  • Authors must follow all relevant laws, regulations, and professional guidelines for human and animal subject research.
  • If you change your research plan, tell the right people.
  • Authors must share the results of their studies with the public. This includes sharing negative, inconclusive, and positive findings. They must also share their funding sources, institutional affiliations, and any potential conflicts of interest. Manuscripts that do not follow these guidelines will not be considered for publication.

g) Post-publication discussions, corrections, and retractions

In the event of identifying errors, plagiarism, content falsification, data manipulation, or legal issues regarding privacy and copyright in a published article, DecisionTech Review adheres to a rigorous retraction or correction procedure following COPE's guidelines. It is recommended that authors promptly notify the editorial office of any such issues, providing detailed explanations and evidence to support their claims. Upon receipt of such notifications, the editorial team initiates an investigation involving relevant experts, if necessary, to assess the validity and severity of the identified concerns. By the circumstances and extent of the issues, the journal may issue a retraction, formally withdrawing the article from publication, or a correction, where errors are acknowledged and rectified while maintaining the integrity of the original work. Retractions and corrections are accompanied by transparent statements outlining the reasons for the action, ensuring accountability and maintaining the trust of the scientific community and readership.

h) Preprints

Authors can use preprint servers to host their manuscripts before submission to the journal. Such instances will not be considered instances of multiple or redundant publication. Some preprint servers that can be used are  ArXiv ,  SSRN , bioRxiv ,  psyArXiv ,  SocArXiv ,  engrXiv ,  e-LIS , and RePEc .

  1. Plagiarism

DecisionTech Review maintains a strict policy against plagiarism. Manuscripts submitted to the journal must be original works and free from significant text similarity with previously published sources. To this end, we utilize plagiarism detection software to screen all submissions (iThenticate), and a similarity index of no more than 15% is accepted. Any manuscript exceeding this threshold or showing unoriginal content without proper citation will be rejected. Authors are responsible for ensuring their work adheres to ethical standards, including appropriately attributing all sources.

j) Third-party materials

DecisionTech Review requires that all content included in submitted manuscripts must be either original works of the authors or have explicit permission to reproduce from the copyright holder. Third-party materials are considered -but not limited to -text, data, images, figures, screenshots, tables, audio, or videos. The authors are responsible for securing the necessary permissions and providing appropriate credit for reproduced or adapted content. All permissions must be indicated in the figure captions. Failure to comply with copyright regulations may delay the editorial process or reject the manuscript. The journal is not liable for any copyright infringements committed by the authors.

k) Usage of Artificial Intelligence (AI) AI-assisted technologies

It is permissible for authors to employ artificial intelligence (AI) tools in their research, including, but not limited to, the analysis, processing, and visualization of data and the enhancement of writing and style. Nevertheless, these AI tools should not be regarded as authors or employed for general writing tasks, such as literature reviews or other pertinent sections. It is incumbent upon authors who use such tools to exercise due diligence in monitoring the accuracy and veracity of the results. The journal employs automated detection tools to identify content generated by platforms like ChatGPT or Gemini. Consequently, if a substantial quantity of content is identified as having been generated by these tools, the article will be rejected.

Conversely, editors and reviewers are prohibited from uploading manuscripts to IA platforms due to confidentiality issues and data privacy rights. They will not be able to generate reports based on such tools, and no editorial decisions should be based on results from AI tools.

The use of AI tools in the academic publishing process is still a developing area. In the future, the publisher may adopt policies that are different from those stated here.

7. Editorial process

a) Post-submission stage

Once an article is submitted, the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) performs a comprehensive review to ensure its content is relevant, complete, technically sound, plagiarism-free, and presented appropriately. At this stage, the Editor-in-Chief may reject the proposal if it is deemed unsuitable for peer review.

The journal utilizes iThenticate to detect text similarity with other published materials. The Editor-in-Chief assesses every similarity report, ensuring that no more than 15% of similarity is detected if that percentage of text has been appropriately cited.

b) Editorial assignment and review phase

When the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) moves the manuscript to the peer review phase, two external reviewers with significant expertise are assigned. The peer review process is conducted in a double-blind manner. The EiC or a potential Handling Editor from the editorial board assigns the reviewers. While reviewers perform voluntary work, they must consider timeliness, confidentiality, potential conflicts of interest, and ethical behavior.

c) Editorial decision

Once the review process is complete, the Editor-in-Chief is the sole decision-maker. If a designated editorial board member handles an article, that individual can only make a recommendation, which the EiC then approves. The decisions may be one of the following:

  • Accepted
  • Considered with minor revisions
  • Considered with major revisions
  • Rejected

The authors will be informed of each decision via a notification containing the relevant details and potential next steps.

8. Ethical policies and instructions for reviewers

The COPE Guidelines inspire our editorial practices. Therefore, we invite reviewers to delve into the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers . Any suspicious misconduct during the review process should be informed to the Editorial Office .

a) Peer reviewing for DecisionTech Review

Peer reviewers are integral to the scholarly publishing process, as they ensure the quality of published content. Therefore, reviewers are expected to submit comprehensive, constructive, objective, and transparent reports.

There are two avenues through which one may become a reviewer: (1) by direct invitation from the editorial staff or (2) by registering as a reviewer in the editorial management system. It is incumbent upon reviewers to provide accurate contact information in each case, including their affiliation and research interests.

By accepting a review invitation, you agree to the following conditions:

  • If you can review the manuscript, you should accept the invitation.
  • Give the editors your correct contact details.
  • If there are no conflicts of interest, accept the invitation to review. A competing interest can be personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political, or religious.
  • All parties must follow the journal's peer-review guidelines.
  • You must respond to the peer review within the required time.

b) Steps to conduct a review

  • Read the manuscript and any supplementary material. If there is missing or incomplete information, contact the editor who invited you to review.
  • Keep the review process confidential. Do not use information from it for personal or other benefits. Only the editor can review the manuscript.
  • If you have a competing interest, tell the editor.

c) Writing the review report

  • The review should be written in the journal's format.
  • Reviewers should be objective and constructive. If possible, they should provide references to support general statements. Peer review helps authors improve manuscripts.
  • As a reviewer, you can tell the editor whether to accept, make minor or major revisions, or reject the manuscript. Your recommendation should match the review comments. Tell the editor which parts you have reviewed.
  • The following criteria are asked at the time to assess the manuscript:
    • The objective, methodology, and results are consistent.
    • The research questions or hypotheses are valid.
    • The study is original.
    • Previous research findings have been presented, discussed, and compared with the study results.
    • The language and presentation of the figures and tables are clear.
    • The references are complete and coherent with the manuscript's content and the field's status.

d) Acknowledgment to Reviewers

Upon request, certificates for reviewers will be issued.

9. Ethical policies and instructions for editors

a) Editor(s)-in-Chief’s roles and responsibilities

The Editors-in-Chief are responsible for the following:

  • Conduct preliminary assessments of manuscripts to ascertain their alignment with the thematic scope and basic requirements for potential peer review.
  • The editors will handle manuscripts within their research area directly, while those outside their expertise will be assigned to a suitable editorial board member.
  • Identify and assess potential conflicts of interest that could impact the transparency of the editorial process.
  • A minimum of two external reviewers are required to be invited to assess each manuscript.
  • Make the final decisions regarding peer-reviewed articles from regular and special issues.
  • The editorial team is responsible for meeting all deadlines set out in the editorial process.
  • Propose potential modifications to the journal's thematic scope.
  • Conduct assessments of special issues.
  • Promote the journal.
  • Oversee the editorial team, including the ability to remove inactive members and bring in new members with expertise in the field.

The editorial board members are responsible for the following tasks:

  • Manuscript reviewing: If invited by the Editor-in-Chief, manuscripts will be reviewed for quality, relevance, and adherence to the journal's scope and guidelines.
  • Providing expertise: To offer expertise in specific subject areas, providing insights and guidance to authors, reviewers, and the editorial team.
  • Decision-making: to contribute to formulating editorial decisions, including the selection of reviewers, the acceptance or rejection of manuscripts, and the journal's overall strategic direction.
  • Promoting the journal: To assist in promoting the journal within their networks and academic communities, thereby increasing visibility and attracting high-quality submissions.
  • Peer review management: Oversight of the peer review process, including coordination of reviewers, evaluation of feedback, and recommendation of final decisions on manuscript acceptance.
  • Editorial development: to contribute to creating editorial policies, guidelines, and initiatives to enhance the journal's quality, impact, and reputation.
  • Conflict resolution: to resolve conflicts of interest, disputes among authors or reviewers, or other ethical issues that may arise during publication.
  • Continuous improvement: to provide feedback and suggestions for enhancing the journal's processes, content, and overall effectiveness, thereby contributing to its ongoing growth and development.

b) Peer review and decision-making

Peer review is an essential quality control measure that ensures published materials meet the highest standards. For this reason, it is regarded as the most crucial phase in the scholarly publication process. The process comprises the following stages:

  • The initial review ensures that the paper meets the minimum quality standards in content and format.
  • The next step is to invite two external reviewers directly and complete the remaining editorial process.
  • Kindly request two external reviewers to assess the manuscript. Reviewers must possess expertise in the subject matter they are evaluating. They must not be affiliated with the authors' institution and shouldn't belong to the same institution.
  • The final decision will be made based on the comments provided by the reviewers. If the reviews are in complete opposition, a third reviewer must be invited to provide input. The review process will be considered complete once the manuscript has been subjected to all requisite review rounds and the author has had an opportunity to consider all recommendations. The decisions to make will be the following:
    • Accepted
    • Considered with minor revisions
    • Considered with major revisions
    • Rejected

10. Special Issue Acceptance and Guest Editors Appointment

The special issues proposal represents an editorial strategy implemented by DecisionTech Review to foster discussions on emerging and relevant topics that require further examination and consolidation. Each special issue is evaluated exclusively by the Editor-in-Chief, with the following criteria taken into account to approve it:

  • The relevance of a proposed special issue is determined by its alignment with the journal's scope and its capacity to address current trends or gaps in knowledge within the discipline.
  • The proposed special issue's novelty is evaluated in comparison to existing literature.
  • The scope, objectives, and availability of potential contributors with relevant expertise determine feasibility.
  • Impact is assessed regarding advancing knowledge, influencing policy or practice, and stimulating further research.
  • Dissemination is evaluated in terms of the strategies employed to promote the special issue and reach a broad audience through various channels, including conferences and social media.

The special issue proposals are open for submission throughout the year, and there are no restrictions regarding the geographic coverage of the topics under consideration. The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for evaluating the suitability of Guest Editors, including external candidates, for the editorial role in question. It is worth noting that:

  • It should be noted that the Guest Editor's role does not entail making a final decision regarding submitted manuscripts; instead, their function is to recommend a decision. Ultimately, the decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief.
  • Guest editors are prohibited from submitting papers to their special issue. Guest Editors may contribute a guest editorial introducing the special issue.
  • All papers submitted to the special issue will be subject to the same review process as regular papers described above. All authors submitting to the special issue must adhere to the established editorial policies.

Instructions on how to propose a special issue can be found here.

If a Guest Editor detects any misconduct, including authorship disputes, plagiarism, a duplicate submission, conflict of interest, or content manipulation, they should report it to the Editorial Office. We will follow the COPE’s Guidelines to proceed in every single case.