TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science

Peer-Review Model

TJTHS follows a double-blind peer-review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the evaluation process.

Under this model:

• Reviewers are not informed of the identities of authors.
• Authors are not informed of the identities of reviewers.
• Reviewer reports are treated as confidential editorial records.
• The journal takes reasonable measures to remove identifying information before external review.
• Authors are responsible for submitting an anonymized manuscript and removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying statements, file properties, and other information that may disclose their identity during the review process.

The journal maintains confidentiality of submitted manuscripts, reviewer comments, and editorial communications throughout the review process.

Scope of Peer Review

All research manuscripts submitted to TJTHS undergo editorial assessment and, where considered suitable, external peer review before publication.

The journal may consider the following manuscript categories:

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

Administrative materials, policy updates, corrections, retraction notices, and other non-research content may undergo editorial assessment rather than external peer review. Such content will not be represented as externally peer-reviewed research articles.

Peer Review Process Workflow

The standard peer-review workflow followed by TJTHS includes the following stages:

This workflow may be adjusted when additional assessment, ethical review, or specialist evaluation is required.

Throughout the peer-review process, TJTHS maintains appropriate editorial documentation and records to ensure traceability, confidentiality, accountability, and consistency in manuscript evaluation.

Stage 1: Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes an initial assessment by the Editorial Office or an assigned editor before external peer review.

The initial screening evaluates:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Completeness of submission materials
• Manuscript structure and academic presentation
• Originality and scholarly relevance
• Basic methodological suitability
• Compliance with 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. Similarity concerns are evaluated by authorized editors considering the complete context.

After initial screening, manuscripts may be:

• Sent for external peer review
• Returned to authors for preliminary correction
• Referred for additional editorial assessment
• Rejected without external review if they fall outside the journal scope or fail to meet minimum submission requirements

Stage 2: External Peer Review

A manuscript considered suitable after initial editorial screening is normally evaluated by a minimum of two independent reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Additional reviewers may be appointed when:

• Reviewer recommendations differ substantially
• Specialist methodological or technical evaluation is required
• A reviewer declares a conflict of interest
• A reviewer report is incomplete or unsuitable for decision-making
• Additional expert assessment is considered necessary by the editor

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Reviewers do not make the final acceptance or rejection decision.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

Reviewers are selected based on:

• Subject expertise relevant to the manuscript
• Academic or professional experience
• Research and methodological competence
• Ability to provide an independent and objective assessment
• Absence of conflicts of interest
• Availability to complete the review responsibly

The journal maintains a reviewer database consisting of qualified subject specialists from relevant academic and professional fields.

Reviewer profiles may include:

• Area of research expertise
• Institutional affiliation
• Academic background
• Research experience
• Previous review experience
• Subject-specific competencies

Reviewers are generally selected from researchers, academicians, scientists, and professionals with relevant expertise and demonstrated academic or professional contributions.

Reviewers are not selected solely because of personal familiarity with authors or editors.

The responsible editor considers possible relationships, including personal, professional, institutional, supervisory, collaborative, financial, or academic relationships, that may affect reviewer impartiality.

Reviewer Confidentiality

Manuscripts submitted for review are confidential scholarly communications.

Reviewers must not:

• Share manuscripts or reviewer reports with unauthorized individuals.
• Contact authors directly regarding submitted manuscripts.
• Disclose confidential information obtained during review.
• Use unpublished ideas, data, methods, figures, or findings for personal advantage.
• Upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished information to external systems where confidentiality cannot be guaranteed.
• Retain or distribute manuscript files after completing review without authorization.

A reviewer requiring assistance from another individual must obtain permission from the Editorial Office before sharing any confidential material.

Review Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers may evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Relevance to journal scope
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Research objectives and questions
• Appropriateness of research design
• Quality of methodology and analysis
• Reliability and interpretation of results
• Literature engagement
• Reference accuracy and relevance
• Quality of tables, figures, and supplementary materials
• Ethical considerations
• Transparency of declarations
• Research limitations
• Overall suitability for publication

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

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations assist editorial evaluation but do not automatically determine the final decision.

The final publication decision remains the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief or authorized editor after considering reviewer feedback, manuscript quality, and editorial policies.

Editorial Decisions

Following peer review, the responsible editor may decide:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication after completion of required editorial procedures.

Minor Revision

The manuscript requires limited corrections, clarification, or improvement before publication.

Major Revision

The manuscript requires substantial improvement, additional explanation, restructuring, or methodological clarification before further consideration.

Reject

The manuscript is unsuitable for publication due to concerns regarding scope, originality, methodology, reliability, ethics, or scholarly contribution.

Final Decision Authority

The final publication decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or an editor formally authorized by the journal.

The decision is based on:

• Manuscript quality
• Reviewer recommendations
• Author responses
• Research methodology
• Ethical compliance
• Originality
• Scholarly contribution
• Alignment with journal scope and policies

Editorial decisions are not influenced by financial considerations, advertising, sponsorship, nationality, institutional status, political views, religious beliefs, gender, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit:

• Revised manuscript
• Point-by-point response to reviewer comments
• Explanation of changes made
• Reasoned responses where suggestions are not implemented
• Updated declarations or supporting documents where required

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the editor or returned to reviewers for further assessment.

Multiple revision rounds may be requested when necessary.

Conflicting Reviewer Recommendations

When reviewer recommendations differ significantly, the editor may:

• Evaluate the manuscript and reviewer reports independently
• Request clarification from reviewers
• Invite an additional reviewer
• Request targeted revisions
• Make a final decision based on available evidence

The final decision is not determined only by the number of positive or negative recommendations.

Reviewer Database Management

TJTHS maintains a database of qualified reviewers from relevant academic and professional fields.

Reviewer information may include:

• Full name
• Institutional affiliation
• Research expertise
• Academic background
• Professional experience
• Previous reviewing experience
• Relevant publications and subject knowledge

The reviewer database is periodically reviewed and updated to support appropriate reviewer selection and maintain the quality of peer-review practices.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must disclose any circumstances that may affect impartiality.

Reviewers should decline assignments where they:

• Have financial interests related to the manuscript
• Have close personal relationships with authors
• Recently collaborated with authors
• Have direct academic or professional conflicts
• Are involved in the research being evaluated
• Cannot provide an independent assessment

Editors must not handle manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest.

Review Timeline

TJTHS aims to process manuscripts efficiently while maintaining the quality and integrity of peer review.

Typical review stages are:

These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, ethical concerns, additional expert assessment, and author response time.

Where delays occur, authors may contact the Editorial Office for an update.

Reviewer Non-Response and Replacement

If an invited reviewer is unable to complete the evaluation within a reasonable period, the Editorial Office may:

• Send reminders
• Extend the review period when appropriate
• Invite an alternative reviewer
• Assign additional reviewers when required

The journal takes reasonable measures to avoid unnecessary delays while maintaining independent evaluation.

Peer Review Records and Audit Trail

TJTHS maintains confidential editorial records related to each manuscript to ensure transparency, accountability, and consistency in the peer-review process.

Records may include:

• Manuscript submission date
• Initial editorial screening outcome
• Assigned editor details
• Reviewer invitation records
• Reviewer acceptance or decline status
• Reviewer reports
• Author revision history
• Editorial communications
• Final editorial decision
• Publication approval records
• Conflict-of-interest disclosures
• Ethical assessment records

These records support editorial accountability, protect the integrity of the scholarly record, and demonstrate compliance with transparent peer-review practices.

Post-Publication Concerns

TJTHS provides a mechanism for handling post-publication concerns, including:

• Corrections
• Expressions of Concern
• Retractions

Such matters are evaluated according to publication ethics standards and editorial policies to maintain the accuracy, reliability, and integrity of the scholarly record.

Policy Review

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

The latest version of the policy will always be made available through the official journal website.

Editorial Office