The CIT Review Journal (CRJ) is an international, double-blind peer-reviewedjournal publishing high-quality research in Economics, Business, andInformation Technology, with two issues per year (May and November). Thejournal relies on the expertise, professionalism, and commitment of itsreviewers to maintain rigorous academic standards. The editorial board isdeeply grateful for your contribution, as the journal’s quality andintegrity depend on your careful evaluation.
To ensure consistency and fairness in the review process, please follow the guidelines below:
1. Acceptance of Review Assignment
Upon receiving a manuscript, please notify the editorial office immediately if you are unable to conduct the review. Timely communication helps maintain an efficient workflow for authors and editors.
2. Review Timeline
Reviewers are asked to complete their evaluation within three weeks (21 days) of receiving the manuscript. If you anticipate difficulty meeting the deadline, please inform the editorial office as soon as possible.
3. Evaluation of Manuscript Quality
As you review the manuscript, consider the following broader questions:
- Is the content appropriate for the scope of the journal?
- Is the purpose of the study clearly stated?
- Is the manuscript logically structured and well organized?
- Is the writing clear, coherent, and academically sound?
- Does the manuscript contribute new knowledge or insights, or does it merely repeat existing literature?
4. Assessment of References
Please examine the reference list to ensure academic integrity and proper attribution. If you identify potential violations, notify the Editor-in-Chief immediately and provide the relevant sections and sources.
Consider the following:
- Does the manuscript include a sufficient number of references?
- Are the references current, relevant, and appropriate for the topic?
- Has the author meaningfully engaged with the literature, or simply listed sources without discussion?
- Do the references adequately support the manuscript’s arguments?
- Are citations formatted consistently according to CRJ’s required style?
5. Evaluation of Figures and Tables
Graphics reproduced from other sources must include a permissions statement. Captions should contain the phrase: “Reprinted with permission.”
6. Reviewer Recommendation
Please select one of the following categories when submitting your decision:
- Accept as is: The manuscript meets publication standards and requires only minor copyediting.
- Accept with minor revisions: The manuscript meets standards but requires small adjustments.
- Return for substantial revision: The manuscript shows promise but contains major issues (unclear writing, methodological gaps, calculation errors, etc.).
- Reject – inappropriate for the journal: The content does not align with CRJ’s disciplinary scope.
- Reject – do not publish: The manuscript contains serious flaws in content, methodology, or writing.
7. Constructive Feedback
Provide clear, constructive comments to help the author improve the manuscript. Your feedback should support the recommendation you selected and guide the author toward strengthening the work.
8. Annotated Manuscript
If possible, include a marked-up version of the manuscript highlighting areas that require revision. This greatly assists authors in addressing concerns effectively.
9. Communication
If you have questions or concerns during the review process, please contact the editorial office at editorialoffice@cit.edu.al .
10. Review Template
Reviewers must use the official CRJ Review Template, which ensures consistency and adherence to journal standards. You may access the template by clicking here. All reviewers are required to strictly follow the structure and criteria outlined in this template.