Peer Review Process

All submissions to Digital Technologies Research and Applications undergo a rigorous double-blind peer review, designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the highest standards of scientific quality. The editorial process is structured into four distinct stages: Initial Screening, Editorial Evaluation, External Peer Review, and Final Decision.

1. Initial Screening (Technical Check)
Upon submission, the editorial staff performs a preliminary review to confirm that the manuscript meets basic requirements for further processing. This includes:

• Adherence to formatting and submission guidelines;
• Completeness of required sections (e.g., abstract, references, figures);
• Ethical statements and conflict of interest disclosures;
• Plagiarism check using iThenticate;
• Language quality sufficient for academic review.

Only manuscripts passing this stage proceed to academic assessment.

2. Editorial Evaluation (Academic Pre-Check)
A senior academic editor—such as the Editor-in-Chief, a designated Editorial Board Member, or a Collection Editor—is invited to perform an initial academic assessment. At this stage, the editor evaluates:

• The manuscript’s relevance to the scope of the journal or topical collection;
• Scientific soundness of the research design and methodology;
• Appropriateness and accuracy of references;
• Novelty and potential contribution to the field.

Based on this assessment, the editor may:

• Reject the manuscript without external review;
• Request clarifications or revisions prior to review;
• Advance the manuscript to external peer review and recommend reviewers.

To uphold editorial independence, editors are not involved in decisions related to their own submissions.

3. External Peer Review (Double-Blind Review)
Manuscripts that pass editorial evaluation enter the double-blind peer review process, where both the authors' and reviewers’ identities are concealed. At least two qualified independent reviewers are invited based on the following criteria:

• Demonstrated expertise and academic qualifications (typically PhD or equivalent);
• A strong publication record in the manuscript’s field;
• No recent collaboration or institutional affiliation with the authors;
• No conflicts of interest.

Reviewers are expected to:

• Assess the originality, rigor, clarity, and significance of the research;
• Provide constructive, unbiased, and timely feedback;
• Adhere to ethical standards and confidentiality.

Reviewers are typically given 10–14 days to submit their reports. Extensions can be granted upon request. In cases of conflicting reviews, an additional reviewer may be consulted.

4. Final Decision
Upon receipt of reviewer reports, the assigned academic editor evaluates the feedback and recommends one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is ready for publication without further changes.
• Minor or Major Revisions: The manuscript requires revisions before it can be accepted. A revised version may undergo an additional review round.
• Reject and Resubmit: The work may have potential but requires substantial redevelopment and full re-evaluation in a new submission.
• Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current or foreseeable form.

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an authorized Editorial Board Member.

Editorial Support and Transparency
Throughout the process, a dedicated managing editor coordinates communications and supports timely review. Authors are kept informed via the journal’s online submission system (OJS), where they can access editorial updates and reviewer comments.

All accepted manuscripts undergo professional copy-editing and final English editing to ensure clarity and consistency before publication.

Publishing Ethics

The journal Digital Technologies Research and Applications requires all individuals involved in the publishing process to adhere to the highest ethical standards as outlined by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct  and  Best Practice Guidelines .

The editorial team is committed to maintaining a rigorous peer-review process and upholding strict ethical policies to ensure the publication of high-quality scientific research. While the journal strives to maintain the highest standards, instances of unethical practices such as plagiarism, data falsification, image manipulation, and inappropriate authorship credit may occur.

The editorial team takes all ethical concerns seriously and adheres to a zero-tolerance policy regarding such issues. In the event of any suspected misconduct, in-house editors will conduct a thorough investigation, which may involve contacting the authors' institutions or funders if necessary. If misconduct is confirmed, the journal will conduct a reasonably rigorous investigation and take all allegations of potential misconduct seriously according to the COPE flowchart.

Authors are expected to comply with the best practices in ethical publishing when submitting their work to Digital Technologies Research and Applications.

Plagiarism, Data Fabrication and Image Manipulation

Digital Technologies Research and Applications adheres to strict ethical standards and does not tolerate any form of plagiarism, data fabrication, or image manipulation.

Plagiarism involves the uncredited use of text, ideas, images, or data from any source—including the authors’ own previously published work. All reused text must be placed within quotation marks and properly cited. If the design, structure, or language of a manuscript is inspired by previous studies, those sources must be clearly acknowledged.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal are screened for plagiarism using industry-standard software (e.g., iThenticate). Submissions found to contain plagiarized content during peer review will be rejected. If plagiarism is discovered post-publication, the journal will conduct an investigation and take appropriate corrective action, which may include retraction.

Image manipulation is strictly prohibited if it leads to misrepresentation or distortion of the original data. Unacceptable practices include:

• Adding, removing, enhancing, or altering features in an image;
• Combining images that should be presented separately (e.g., different parts of the same gel or different experiments);
• Adjusting contrast, brightness, or color in a way that conceals or exaggerates findings.

Suspected image manipulation will be carefully reviewed. If confirmed, the manuscript may be rejected during peer review or corrected/retracted after publication.

Data integrity is essential. Authors must ensure that all data presented are accurate, original, and not selectively reported or manipulated. Unethical practices include:

• Fabrication or falsification of data;
• Omitting data points to exaggerate results;
• Selectively presenting findings that support a desired conclusion while ignoring contradictory data;
• Using biased analysis methods or statistical tools to influence outcomes (e.g., p-hacking).

Authors are encouraged to preregister their study design and analysis plans to enhance transparency and reproducibility.

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and reserves the right to take action in cases of confirmed misconduct.

Human and Animal Rights Policy

All research involving human participants must comply with the Declaration of Helsinki and be approved by an appropriate ethics committee or institutional review board (IRB). Authors must confirm that informed consent was obtained from all participants and that personal data is anonymized to protect privacy. The manuscript must include a statement describing the ethical approval and consent process.

Example statement:
"This study was approved by the [Name of Ethics Committee], approval number [XXXX]. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to participation."

Research Involving Animals

Any study involving animals must adhere to internationally accepted principles for animal care and use, such as those outlined in the ARRIVE guidelines and by relevant institutional or national guidelines. Authors must confirm that ethical approval was obtained and describe how animal welfare was maintained during the study.

Example statement:
"All animal procedures were conducted in accordance with institutional guidelines and were approved by the [Name of Ethics Committee], protocol number [XXXX]."

Field Studies and Environmental Impact

If research involves field studies that impact wildlife or natural ecosystems, appropriate permits and approvals must be obtained from relevant authorities. Authors should ensure that their work minimizes harm to the environment and adheres to conservation and ethical standards.

Lack of Ethical Approval

If ethical approval was not required (e.g., in the case of publicly available data or certain types of surveys), authors must provide a clear explanation within the manuscript.

The journal reserves the right to reject or retract manuscripts that do not comply with these policies.

Authorship

UK Scientific Publishing Limited follows the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) guidelines which state that in order to qualify for authorship of a manuscript, authors must meet all four criteria:

• Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work;
• Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content;
• Final approval of the version to be published;
• Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Those who contributed to the work but do not qualify for authorship should be listed in the acknowledgments. More detailed guidance on authorship is given by ICMJE.

Any change to the author list during the editorial process or after publication should be approved by all authors, including any who have been removed. We reserve the right to request evidence of authorship, and changes to authorship after acceptance will be made at the discretion of UK Scientific Publishing Limited.

Author Contributions

For complete transparency, all submitted manuscripts should include an author contributorship statement that specifies the work of each author. For research articles with several authors, a short paragraph specifying their individual contributions must be provided.

The following statements should be used: Conceptualization, X.X. and Y.Y.; methodology, X.X.; software, X.X.; validation, X.X., Y.Y. and Z.Z.; formal analysis, X.X.; investigation, X.X.; resources, X.X.; data curation, X.X.; writing—original draft preparation, X.X.; writing—review and editing, X.X.; visualization, X.X.; supervision, X.X.; project administration, X.X.; funding acquisition, Y.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Please refer to the CRediT taxonomy for an explanation of the terms. Authorship must be limited to those who have contributed substantially to the work reported.

The corresponding author should act as a point of contact between the editor and the other authors, keep co-authors informed, and involve them in major decisions about the publication.

Joint first authors can be indicated by the inclusion of the statement “X and X contributed equally to this paper” in the manuscript. The roles of the equal authors should also be adequately disclosed in the contributorship statement.

For review articles, where individual statements are less applicable, a statement should be included that clarifies who was responsible for the ideation, who performed the literature search and/or data analysis, and who drafted and revised the work.

For articles that are principally based on a student’s dissertation or thesis, UK Scientific Publishing Limited recommends that the student is listed as principal author.

Consortium/Group Authorship

If authorship is retained by the consortium or group, the consortium or group should be listed as an author. Individual consortium/group author members listed in the author byline must qualify for authorship according to ICMJE guidelines.

Where work is presented by the author(s) on behalf of a consortium or group, this should be clarified in the author list, for example, “Author A on behalf of XXX Consortium/Group”. The consortium/group will not retain authorship and will only appear in the author list.

If provided, the consortium/group members will be listed in a separate section at the end of the article in Acknowledgments, Appendix or Supplementary Materials.

Authorship and the Use of AI or AI-Assisted Technologies

UK Scientific Publishing Limited follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) position statement when it comes to the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and AI-assisted technology in manuscript preparation. Tools such as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs) do not meet authorship criteria and thus cannot be listed as authors on manuscripts.

In situations where AI or AI-assisted tools have been used in the preparation of a manuscript, this must be appropriately declared with sufficient details at submission via the cover letter. Furthermore, authors are required to be transparent about the use of these tools and disclose details of how the AI tool was used within the “Materials and Methods” section, in addition to providing the AI tool’s product details within the “Acknowledgments” section.

Authors are fully responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their manuscript, including any material contributed by AI or AI-assisted tools, and must ensure, through careful review, that this content complies with all UK Scientific Publishing Limited’s publication ethics policies.

Deceased Authors

If a manuscript is submitted with a deceased author included in the authorship, or if an author passes away during peer review, the corresponding author, or co-authors, should inform the editorial office. If the deceased author was a corresponding author, the authorship group should nominate a co-author for this role. The corresponding author should confirm the contribution of the deceased author and any potential conflicts of interest. Upon publication, a note will be added under the author list.

Changes to Authorship

Authors are expected to carefully consider authorship before manuscript submission. Any change to the author list should be made during the editorial process, before manuscript acceptance. Authorship changes, including any addition, removal, or rearrangement of author names will require the approval of all authors including any to be removed. To request any change in authorship, the journal must receive a completed authorship change form that includes the signatures of all authors, and provides a reason for the change. Any changes to authorship requested after manuscript acceptance will result in a delay in publication. If the manuscript has already been published, requests for a change in authorship will be evaluated and require the publication of a Correction. We reserve the right to request evidence of authorship, and changes to authorship after acceptance will be made at the discretion of UK Scientific Publishing Limited.

Authorship Disputes

UK Scientific Publishing Limited follows the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines when it comes to resolving authorship disputes that may occur either during processing or post-publication. Here, COPE guidelines clearly state that Journals are not in a position to adjudicate on appropriate authorship contributions (https:/publicationethics.org/resources/discussion-documents/authorship) and that disputed authorship is not usually grounds for retraction when “there is no reason to doubt the validity of the findings” (https://publicationethics.org/retraction-guidelines).

In situations where disputes cannot be settled by the affected parties, Journals will reach out to an appropriate Institution or Governing Body for final adjudication. UK Scientific Publishing Limited reserves the right to amend authorship lists in line with Institution or Governing Body recommendations.

Conflict of Interest

Authors’ Declaration of Conflict of Interest
In accordance with the guidelines of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), authors are required to disclose all relationships or interests that could inappropriately influence—or be perceived to influence—the submitted work. Conflicts of interest can be financial or non-financial, professional or personal, and may relate to individual authors or their institutions.

Examples of potential conflicts include (but are not limited to):

• Financial relationships: employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, paid expert testimony, patents, grants, or other funding.
• Non-financial relationships: personal or professional relationships, affiliations, academic competition, ideological or political beliefs.

Authors must clearly disclose any potential conflicts in the manuscript, in a dedicated section titled “Conflicts of Interest”, located just before the reference list. If there is no conflict, the following statement should be included:
“Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.”

If the research received external funding, authors must also disclose the role of the funder. If the funder had no role in the study, authors should state:
“The funding sponsors had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.”

All disclosures must also be made at the time of submission via the journal’s online system.

Important note:
UK Scientific Publishing Limited does not accept studies funded (either partially or fully) by the tobacco industry. Manuscripts on smoking cessation or tobacco harm reduction will be considered only if they are free of such funding sources. For studies funded by other industries (e.g., pharmaceutical, food, chemical), the role of the sponsor in the study design and data interpretation must be fully disclosed.

Reviewers’ Declaration of Conflict of Interest
All reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a manuscript for review. Reviewers should decline the invitation to review if they have any of the following relationships with the authors or the work, as these may unduly influence—or be perceived to influence—their objectivity:

• Collaborations with the authors within the past three years or ongoing collaborative projects.
• Shared institutional affiliation with any of the authors at the time of review.
• Personal relationships, disputes, or academic competition with any of the authors.
• Financial interests or investments that may be affected by the publication or rejection of the manuscript.
• Involvement in directly competing research or related intellectual property.

Since Digital Technologies Research and Applications adopts a double-blind peer review process, reviewer and author identities are kept confidential to the extent possible. However, if a reviewer becomes aware of the authors’ identity and a potential conflict exists, they should immediately notify the handling editor or editorial office and withdraw from the review if necessary.

Editorial Staff’s Declaration of Conflict of Interest
All editorial staff at UK Scientific Publishing Limited are required to declare any interests—financial, academic, or otherwise—that may affect or be perceived to affect their editorial decisions. Editorial independence is strictly enforced, and acceptance decisions are based solely on scientific merit and editorial standards, without any influence from commercial considerations.

Failure to disclose potential conflicts is considered a serious violation of professional conduct and may result in disciplinary action.

Copyright and Licensing

_Copyright

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

_License

Digital Technologies Research and Applications publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by Digital Technologies Research and Applications agree to have the CC BY 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for any purpose, including commercial use. As long as the author and original source are properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute, reuse, and transform the content.

Indexing & Archiving

As a new journal, the Editorial Team behind Digital Technologies Research and Applications is currently doing its best to have the journal indexed in databases all around the world.

The journal has been indexed/included by

Google Scholar

Scilit

WorldCat (OCLC)

J-Gate

Archives

The contents of Digital Technologies Research and Applications are archived and preserved by Portico. 

Article Processing Charges (APC)

This journal is open access, and the Article Processing Charge (APC) is 600 USD, which is applicable only to authors whose manuscripts have been successfully accepted after peer-review.

At UK Scientific Publishing Limited, we strongly believe that the APC should not become a barrier in the publication process. A range of discounts or waivers is offered to authors who are not able to cover the APC.

Payments can be made through Wire transfer - Authors can make the APC payment directly to the Publisher; please find the relevant banking information below:

• Account Name: UK SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING LIMITED
• Bank Name: Lloyds Bank
• Account number: 39175763
• Sort code: 309950

We only receive payment in US Dollars (USD). Please reference the invoice number/article ID in the payment description column to ease the verification process.

Note: Each submitted manuscript is fair and unbiased, the Article Processing Charges will not affect any decision made by the editor on the manuscript. An APC invoice will be sent to the authors after their manuscripts have been accepted. Articles will only be published after the APCs have been paid. Authors are required to clear the APC payment before the invoice is due (generally, an APC invoice is due within 10 days after issuance). Typically, the invoice will be addressed to the corresponding author(s). In any case that the payer’s details should be amended, please inform our editors via email.

Author Appeals

If a manuscript is rejected with no option for resubmission, the authors may lodge a formal appeal within three months of the decision. Appeals should be addressed to the Editorial Office and must include:

• A comprehensive cover letter with a detailed rebuttal;
• Point-by-point responses to reviewer and/or editorial comments.

The Managing Editor will forward the appeal materials to an independent Editorial Board Member for re-evaluation. The final recommendation, whether to uphold the rejection or proceed with further review, will be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. Decisions following an appeal are final and binding.

Comments and Complaints

Digital Technologies Research and Applications welcomes responsible feedback to maintain the integrity of the scientific record. Readers with concerns about a published paper should first contact the corresponding author. If the author is unresponsive or if direct contact is inappropriate, the Editorial Office may be contacted.

The Editorial Office will assess all complaints related to scholarly accuracy, ethics, or legal matters, in line with COPE guidelines. Investigations may involve the authors, Editors-in-Chief, Editorial Board members, external experts, or institutional representatives. Legal counsel may be consulted if necessary.

Complaints must focus on academic, ethical, or procedural concerns. Personal or defamatory remarks will not be considered. Anonymous complaints are accepted if sufficiently detailed. Confidential handling can be requested and will be respected where appropriate.

Decisions regarding corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern are made by the Editors-in-Chief or designated editors. Complainants will be informed of the final outcome, though updates may not be provided during the process. We may discontinue correspondence that is not respectful or constructive.

To submit a concern, please use our contact form or email the Editorial Office with details of the paper, the issue raised, any prior correspondence, and any relevant conflicts of interest.

Withdrawal Policy

Digital Technologies Research and Applications is committed to maintaining the accuracy and transparency of the scholarly record. When necessary, we issue formal updates to published articles in the form of withdrawals, corrections, retractions, or expressions of concern. Each decision is handled with care, guided by publishing ethics and the specific circumstances of the case.

1. Withdrawal (Pre-publication)
Manuscripts may be withdrawn by the authors at any time prior to acceptance. Once accepted or published online, withdrawal is generally not permitted unless serious ethical or legal concerns arise. Any post-acceptance withdrawal must be requested in writing, stating clear reasons, and will be subject to editorial approval.

2. Corrections (Errata or Corrigenda)
Corrections are issued when errors are identified in the published article that affect its clarity or accuracy but do not compromise the overall findings. These may include typographical errors, missing information, incorrect author affiliations, or minor data mislabeling. A correction notice will be published, linked to the original article, and the online version will be updated with a correction statement.

3. Retractions
Articles are retracted when there is clear evidence of significant flaws or misconduct, including but not limited to data fabrication, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or unethical research practices. Retraction notices are published separately, linked to the original article, and the original article will remain online, digitally watermarked as “Retracted” to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

Retractions may be initiated by authors, editors, or institutional bodies, and will be reviewed by the Editors-in-Chief and Editorial Board. Legal or academic consultation may be sought when appropriate.

4. Expressions of Concern
When a potential issue is raised about a published paper that requires further investigation, but the outcome is not yet conclusive, the journal may issue an expression of concern. This aims to alert readers while preserving neutrality until the matter is resolved. Once investigations conclude, the expression may be followed by a correction or retraction as needed.