The editor of the Project Innovation journals determines the content for each issue. All manuscripts are double blind peer reviewed by members of the editorial board. Editorial board members consider relevance of the manuscript, the review of contemporary literature, the methodology, presentation and discussion, and the author’s conclusions.
Project Innovation journals maintain strict confidentiality regarding all submitted manuscript. Information regarding submitted manuscripts is provided only to the corresponding author, reviewers and the Project Innovation Austin staff.
Project Innovation Austin publication decisions are based solely on the merits of the manuscript. Decisions are made without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious belief, ethnic origin, citizenship, or political philosophy of the authors.
Project Innovation maintains strict confidentiality with respect to unpublished manuscripts. The content of unpublished manuscripts is not shared with other authors or used in any research activity.
Project Innovation Austin’s editorial board members provide objective peer reviews. An electronic review system is utilized to ease the burden of the review process and to ensure the timeliness and the thoroughness of the review. Reviewers score manuscripts and provide written editorial guidance for authors.
Reviews are requested to be completed within a two-week time frame to ensure a timely response to the author and to maintain each journal’s publication schedule. Reviewers who feel that a manuscript is outside of their respective areas of expertise may be excused from the review process and the manuscript under consideration will be reassigned to another member of the Editorial Board.
Reviewers are made aware that all manuscripts received for review are to be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the editor.
Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.
Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should also call to the editor's attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.
Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.
Authors of reports of original research should present an accurate account of the work performed as well as an objective discussion of its significance. When appropriate, underlying data should be represented accurately in the paper. Research studies paper should contain sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the work. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable.
Authors should ensure that they have written entirely original works, and if the authors have used the work and/or words of others that the work has been appropriately cited or quoted.
An author should not in general publish manuscripts describing essentially the same research in more than one journal or primary publication. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable.
Proper acknowledgment of the work of others must always be given. Authors should cite publications that have been influential in determining the nature of the reported work.
Authorship should be limited to those who have made a significant contribution to the conception, design, execution, or interpretation of the reported study. All those who have made significant contributions should be listed as co-authors. Where there are others who have participated in certain substantive aspects of the research project, they should be acknowledged or listed as contributors. The corresponding author should ensure that all appropriate co-authors and no inappropriate co-authors are included on the paper, and that all co-authors have seen and approved the final version of the paper and have agreed to its submission for publication.
All authors should disclose in their manuscript any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project should be disclosed.
Authors have access to Project Innovation’s online editing system that allows them to review, edit, and correct manuscripts electronically prior to publication and dissemination. If authors discover a significant error or inaccuracy in their own published works, it is their obligation to promptly notify the journal editor or publisher and cooperate with the editor to retract or correct the paper.