Reviewing a paper for JITTA is very different from reviewing for a traditional IS
research journal because JITTA's review and publication process is up to five times
faster than that for traditional journals. To accomplish this, the journal's editors have
re-engineered the review process. As a result, reviewing for JITTA is more structured,
effective, and actually easier for the reviewer than reviewing for a traditional journal.
If you haven’t been called on to review for JITTA and you are interested in becoming
one of our reviewers, please send an email message to [email protected], with a copy
of your recent CV. Be sure to include complete contact information.
Please read the following instructions before reviewing a paper. You may also wish to
read the call for papers and instructions to authors, which contain very valuable
information about the culture of the review process at JITTA.

What we ask of the reviewer

1. Three week turn-around. To accomplish our goal, an average submission-to-publication
time of 16 weeks, we ask reviewers to complete reviews in 3 weeks. Return your completed
review in 5 days to receive a free one year subscription.
2. Compete review. JITTA has a one major/one minor revision rule. Consequently,
authors must be informed about what is required to make the paper acceptable in one
review round. We ask reviewers to completely specify, to the level of detail possible,
what would be required to make the reviewed paper acceptable for publication.
What we do for reviewers.
1. The paper is ready to review. The senior editor has pre-reviewed the paper to
insure that the paper is well-finished, the authors have followed the instructions to
authors, and the paper makes a prima facie case for contribution.
2. The paper is easier to review. The required contribution section explictly argues for
the author's view of the paper's contribution and intended audience. This can be used
to evaluate the paper and greatly simplifies review.
Journal of Information Technology Theory & Application ISSN: 1532-4516 (online) 1552-6496 (print)
3. One review. The reviewer's obligation to review a paper is strictly limited to one
review, plus a follow-up. The senior editor won't be coming back to you to ask you to
review the paper over and over again.
4. Documentation of your service. JITTA will list the names of reviewers in the last
issue of each volume. In addition, for reviewers who have provided on-time, good
quality reviews for three papers submitted in a calendar year, JITTA will issue a
certificate of outstanding service, which may be used for the reviewer's tenure,
promotion or merit portfolio and resume.
After reviewing for a number of papers for the journal, a reviewer may nominate
him/herself to the editor as a member of the Editorial Review Board.

How to review a paper for JITTA

We ask that you set aside your existing model for how to review a paper when you
review for JITTA because its re-engineered review and publication process requires
some fresh thinking about how to do the review and provides opportunities to make
the reviewer's efforts more productive. The new paper styles solicited for JITTA also
require new thinking about the desired outcome of the review process.
Acceptable papers for JITTA may often be earlier in the research life cycle than those
for other journals. They may be shorter, lack elements expected for papers in the
traditional IS journals, or use simplified analysis to produce results quickly. See the
call for papers for a discussion of the research paper formats.
The objectives of our review process are more narrow than those of some traditional
IS journals. We don't ask reviewers to become partners or anonymous co-authors to
the paper. The objectives of the review are to determine whether a paper can be made
acceptable for publication and to specify how it must be revised to do so.
Review steps.
Review of the paper starts with the author's contribution statement, to be found as a
subsection of the paper's introductory material. The statement will argue that the
paper makes a specific contribution to new knowledge and that it is intended for a
particular audience of researchers and/or practitioners. The overall evaluation of the
paper should be based on this statement.
As you read the paper for the first time consider the contribution statement. If the
paper contributed the new knowledge claimed in the contribution statement would
this make the paper appropriate for publication in an IS research journal that aims to
be a top-tier journal, browsed by researchers and practitioners interested in learning
about the first results of new research? Is the contribution substantial and
interesting? To what extent is it novel, i.e., do the authors create new knowledge?

Other items to be considered include:

Audience. Papers should be of high interest to a defined audience, whether broad
or narrow.
Presentation. Papers must be well presented in English.
Credibility. The paper should present adequate evidence and appropriate
reasoning to support any recommendations and conclusions.
Integrity. Authors of application papers are expected to observe the high
standards for citing other’s work and obtaining permission to use other’s work
where appropriate.
Methodology. Whether the research methods are appropriate to accomplish the
paper’s objectives.
Execution. Whether the paper is well done in terms of its objectives.

Reviewer instructions to the authors.

JITTA has a one major/one minor revision rule. Consequently, it is important to
completely specify what is required for the author to make the paper acceptable for
publication in JITTA. Each recommendation should be consecutively numbered;
break complex recommendations into several separate numbered recommendations.
The recommendations should be as specific as possible so that they are unambiguous
to the author. Detailed recommendations, e.g., about specific words, can be grouped
together at the end of the review or left until the follow-up.
It is important that the recommendations request revisions that can be accomplished
in a few weeks or months at most. We will never ask authors to write a different
paper, do a different experiment, conduct a new survey, or the like. If a paper cannot
be made acceptable in 1 1/2 rounds of revision, in a fast review process, we'll reject it