TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science

About the Policy

TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science (TJTHS) uses a double-blind peer-review process for scholarly manuscripts submitted for publication.

Peer review assists the Editorial Office in evaluating the originality, methodological quality, clarity, relevance, academic contribution, and reliability of submitted manuscripts. Reviewer recommendations support editorial decision-making but do not by themselves determine acceptance or rejection.

Peer-Review Model

TJTHS follows a double-blind peer-review model.

Under this model:

• Reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities.
• Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.
• Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial records.
• The journal makes reasonable efforts to remove identifying information before external review.

Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized manuscript and removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying statements, file properties, and other information that may reveal their identity during review.

Scope of Peer Review

Scholarly manuscripts submitted to TJTHS are subject to editorial assessment and, where suitable, external peer review before publication.

These manuscript categories may include:

• Original Research Articles
• Review Articles
• Systematic Reviews
• Technical Articles
• Case Studies
• Short Communications
• Methodological Papers
• Conceptual Papers
• Interdisciplinary Research Articles

Administrative notices, policy updates, corrections, retraction notices, and similar non-research content may be assessed editorially rather than through external peer review. Any material that does not undergo the journal’s standard external review process should not be presented as an externally peer-reviewed research article.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office or a responsible editor.

The initial assessment may consider:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Completeness of the submission
• Manuscript structure and presentation
• Originality and academic relevance
• Basic methodological suitability
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines
• Availability of required declarations
• Authorship and affiliation information
• Ethical approval and participant consent, where applicable
• Conflict-of-interest and funding disclosures
• Copyright and permission requirements
• Similarity with previously published material

A similarity report, where used, supports editorial assessment but does not independently determine whether plagiarism or misconduct has occurred. Any similarity concern should be evaluated in context by an authorized editor.

Following initial screening, the manuscript may be:

• Sent for external peer review
• Returned to the authors for preliminary correction
• Referred for additional editorial assessment
• Declined without external review where it is outside the journal’s scope or does not meet basic submission requirements

Rejection during initial screening does not imply that the subject of the manuscript lacks academic value. It indicates that the submission is unsuitable for further consideration by TJTHS in its current form.

Stage 2: External Peer Review

A manuscript considered suitable after initial screening is normally sent to at least two independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise.

An additional reviewer may be appointed when:

• Reviewer recommendations differ substantially
• Specialist methodological or technical assessment is required
• A conflict of interest affects an assigned reviewer
• A reviewer report is incomplete or unsuitable for editorial use
• Additional evaluation is considered necessary by the responsible editor

Reviewers provide recommendations to the journal. They do not make the final publication decision.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected on the basis of factors such as:

• Subject knowledge
• Research or professional expertise
• Methodological competence
• Relevance to the manuscript
• Ability to provide an independent assessment
• Absence of a relevant conflict of interest
• Availability to complete the review responsibly

Reviewers should not be selected solely because they are personally known to the authors or editors.

The responsible editor must consider whether a proposed reviewer has a personal, professional, institutional, academic, supervisory, collaborative, or financial relationship that could affect impartiality.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly communications.

Reviewers must not:

• Share the manuscript or reviewer report with an unauthorized person
• Contact the authors directly about the manuscript
• Disclose confidential information obtained through review
• Use unpublished ideas, data, methods, figures, or findings for personal advantage
• Upload the manuscript to an external generative AI system where confidentiality cannot be assured
• Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing the review without authorization

A reviewer who requires assistance from another person must obtain permission from the Editorial Office before sharing any confidential manuscript material.

Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers may be asked to evaluate:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Clarity of the research question or objective
• Appropriateness of the research design
• Quality of methods and analysis
• Reliability and interpretation of results
• Consistency between evidence and conclusions
• Adequacy of literature engagement
• Accuracy and relevance of references
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary material
• Ethical considerations
• Transparency of declarations and data-related information
• Clarity, organization, and readability
• Limitations of the research
• Overall suitability for publication

Reviewers should distinguish between essential corrections and optional suggestions.

Review reports should be specific, constructive, respectful, and supported by academic reasoning.

Reviewer Recommendations

A reviewer may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

A reviewer recommendation is advisory. The responsible editor may reach a different decision after considering all reviewer reports, the manuscript, author responses, ethical concerns, and journal requirements.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the responsible editor may decide:

A request for revision does not guarantee eventual acceptance.

Final Decision

The final decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or another editor formally authorized to make publication decisions.

The decision should be based on:

• The manuscript’s academic quality
• Reviewer recommendations
• Author responses and revisions
• Relevance to the journal’s scope
• Methodological reliability
• Ethical and legal compliance
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Compliance with journal policies

Financial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, author nationality, institutional status, political views, religious beliefs, gender, or other irrelevant personal characteristics must not determine the editorial decision.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

• A revised manuscript
• A point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments
• A clear explanation of all changes made
• A reasoned response where a suggested change has not been made
• Updated declarations or supporting documents, where required

Authors should respond professionally and should not attempt to identify or contact anonymous reviewers.

The responsible editor may assess the revision directly or return it to one or more reviewers for further evaluation.

Multiple revision rounds may be requested where necessary. Repeated revision requests do not guarantee acceptance.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

Where reviewer recommendations differ substantially, the responsible editor may:

• Assess the reports and manuscript independently
• Request clarification from a reviewer
• Invite an additional independent reviewer
• Request a targeted revision
• Reach an editorial decision based on the available evidence

The number of positive or negative reviewer recommendations alone does not determine the final decision.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any circumstance that could affect, or reasonably appear to affect, their impartiality.

A reviewer should decline or seek guidance before accepting an assignment where the reviewer:

• Has a relevant financial interest
• Has a close personal or professional relationship with an author
• Has recently collaborated with an author
• Has a direct academic or professional rivalry
• Is involved in the research under review
• Is unable to provide an independent assessment
• Has another relevant competing interest

Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have a relevant conflict of interest. Such manuscripts must be assigned to another suitably qualified editor.

Submissions from Editors and Editorial Board Members

Manuscripts submitted by an editor, Editorial Board member, reviewer, journal employee, or a person closely associated with TJTHS must follow the same editorial and peer-review requirements as other submissions.

The submitting person must not:

• Select reviewers
• Influence reviewer appointments
• Participate in editorial discussion about the manuscript
• Access confidential review information beyond the normal author process
• Make or influence the final publication decision

The manuscript must be handled by an independent editor without a relevant conflict of interest.

Ethical or Research-Integrity Concerns

Peer review is not limited to evaluating writing quality. Reviewers and editors should report concerns involving:

• Plagiarism
• Duplicate or redundant publication
• Fabricated or falsified data
• Inappropriate image manipulation
• Citation manipulation
• Undisclosed conflicts of interest
• Authorship concerns
• Missing ethical approval
• Participant-consent concerns
• Copyright infringement
• Unreliable or misleading findings
• Other possible research or publication misconduct

Reviewers should report concerns confidentially to the Editorial Office and should not investigate authors independently.

The journal will assess reported concerns under its applicable publication-ethics and research-misconduct policies.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence

Reviewers and editors must protect the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.

They must not upload confidential manuscripts, unpublished data, reviewer reports, author information, or editorial correspondence to publicly accessible generative AI systems or other external platforms where confidentiality and data protection cannot be assured.

Generative AI must not replace the independent scholarly judgment of reviewers or editors.

Any permitted use of automated tools must remain subject to human review and the journal’s Generative Artificial Intelligence Policy.

Review Timeline

TJTHS does not guarantee completion of peer review within a fixed number of days or weeks.

The time required may vary according to:

• Reviewer availability
• Subject specialization
• Manuscript complexity
• Number and extent of revisions
• Author response time
• Ethical or technical concerns
• Need for additional expert assessment

The Editorial Office should make reasonable efforts to process manuscripts without unnecessary delay.

Where a significant delay occurs, authors may contact the Editorial Office for an update. Authors may request withdrawal in accordance with the Article Withdrawal Policy.

Reviewer Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

• Accept assignments only within their competence
• Complete reviews within the agreed period where possible
• Inform the Editorial Office promptly of a delay
• Provide objective and evidence-based comments
• Maintain confidentiality
• Disclose conflicts of interest
• Avoid hostile, discriminatory, or personal remarks
• Avoid requesting unnecessary citations
• Avoid using the review process for personal advantage
• Evaluate the manuscript independently

The Editorial Office may disregard a report or discontinue using a reviewer where the review is abusive, biased, irrelevant, seriously deficient, or affected by an undisclosed conflict of interest.

Author Responsibilities During Peer Review

Authors are expected to:

• Submit original and accurate work
• Follow the anonymization requirements
• Provide required ethical and authorship declarations
• Respond honestly to editorial questions
• Address reviewer comments carefully
• Avoid contacting or attempting to identify reviewers
• Avoid submitting the manuscript simultaneously to another journal
• Inform the journal of significant errors or concerns
• Maintain professional communication

Authors must not offer gifts, payments, benefits, or other inducements to reviewers or editors.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision where they believe that a significant factual or procedural error affected the evaluation.

An appeal should:

• Identify the manuscript
• State the decision being challenged
• Explain the specific factual or procedural concern
• Provide relevant supporting information
• Avoid simply repeating arguments already considered

Disagreement with reviewer comments or a rejection decision alone does not establish that an error occurred.

Appeals will be handled according to the journal’s Complaints and Appeals Policy. Where reasonably possible, the appeal should be considered by an editor who was not responsible for the original decision.

Peer-Review Records

The journal may retain confidential records relating to:

• Reviewer invitations
• Reviewer responses
• Review reports
• Author revisions
• Editorial communications
• Editorial decisions
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures
• Relevant ethical assessments

Such records are maintained for editorial administration, accountability, and protection of the scholarly record. Access is limited to authorized persons.

Policy Review

TJTHS may revise this Peer Review Policy when changes are required in its editorial procedures, manuscript categories, review model, or publishing operations.

Any revised version will be made available through the official journal website.

Editorial Office