Welcome

Review Process and Policy

The ISST shall not accept or publish manuscripts in an archival journal without prior peer review. There shall be a review process of manuscripts by one or more independent referees who are conversant in the pertinent subject area.

Editors of all regular technical periodical ISST publications shall follow the review process which shall be defined in the Publications Services and Products Broad Operations Manual.

Authors should strive for maximum clarity of expression, bearing in mind that the purpose of publication is the disclosure of technical knowledge and that an excessively complex or poorly written presentation can only obscure the significance of the work presented. Material which is not essential to the continuity of the text (e.g., proofs, derivations, or calculations) be placed in Appendices.

Referees shall treat the contents of papers under review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge which that access provides. Contents of abstracts submitted to conference program committees shall be regarded as privileged as well, and handled in the same manner.

Editorial Policies

1. ISST offers a fast publication after prompt peer-review by the experts in the field and immediate publication upon acceptance. It is the major editorial policy to review the submitted articles as fast as possible and promptly include them in the forthcoming issues should they pass the evaluation process.

2. All research and reviews published in the journal have been fully peer-reviewed by two, and in some cases, three internal or external reviewers. Unless they are out of scope for the journal, or are of an unacceptably low standard of presentation, submitted articles will be sent to peer reviewers. They will generally be reviewed by two experts with the aim of reaching a first decision within a two-month period.

3. Suggested reviewers will be considered alongside potential reviewers identified by their publication record or recommended by Editorial Board members. Reviewers are asked whether the manuscript is scientifically sound and coherent, and of what quality. Where possible, the final decision is made on the basis that the peer reviewers are in accordance with one another, or that at least there is no strong nonconformist view.

4. In cases where there is strong disagreement either among peer reviewers or between the authors and peer reviewers, advice is sought from a member of the journal's Editorial Board. The journal allows a maximum of three revisions of any manuscripts. The ultimate responsibility for any decision lies with the Chief Editor.

5. Authors should strive for maximum clarity of expression, bearing in mind that the purpose of publication is the disclosure of technical knowledge and that an excessively complex or poorly written presentation can only obscure the significance of the work presented. Material which is not essential to the continuity of the text (e.g., proofs, derivations, or calculations) be placed in Appendices.

6. Referee policy treats the contents of papers under review as privileged information not to be disclosed to others before publication. It is expected that no one with access to a paper under review will make any inappropriate use of the special knowledge which that access provides.

7.The Editor evaluates the recommendation and notifies the author of the manuscript status. The manuscript may be:

* Accepted for publication as is.

* Accepted for publication with minor changes, with no re-review necessary.

* Accepted for publication after substantial revision and additional review.

* Rejected.

8. The comments of the anonymous reviewers will be forwarded to you on request, and when you are ready to submit your revised manuscript, read the comments of the editors and reviewers, and respond to them by telling what modifications you have made in your manuscript or why you have not made the suggested changes. Note that revisions must be completed and submitted within two weeks after you received the reviewers' comments. Late manuscripts may be rejected.

9. Material which has been previously copyrighted, published, or accepted for publication will not be considered for publication in ISST.

10. The review process shall ensure that all authors have equal opportunity for publication of their papers. Acceptance and scheduling of publication of papers in these periodicals shall not be impeded by added criteria and procedures beyond those contained in the review process.

Submission

Submitted papers must be in English and should not have been published elsewhere or being currently under consideration by any other journal. All papers are subjected to a blind peer review process. Manuscripts are invited from academicians, research students, and scientists for publication consideration. Each manuscript must include an abstract of approximately 250 words. Authors are recommended to also list their contact information fully on the agreement form submitted to ISST. Articles are accepted in MS-Word or pdf formats, there is no submission fee, but has a processing and publication fee given the article is accepted after blind review. Articles for consideration are to be directed to the Editor via Email