TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science

Editorial Process

TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science (TJTHS) follows a structured editorial process for the assessment and publication of scholarly manuscripts.

The journal seeks to maintain fairness, confidentiality, research integrity, and editorial independence throughout manuscript submission, editorial screening, peer review, revision, and publication.

Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript’s relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, originality, methodological appropriateness, scholarly contribution, clarity, ethical compliance, reviewer recommendations, and conformity with applicable journal policies.

Manuscript Submission

Authors should submit manuscripts through the journal’s official submission system and follow the applicable Author Guidelines.

Submission of a manuscript confirms that the work is original, has not been formally published previously, is not under simultaneous consideration by another journal, and has been reviewed and approved by all listed authors.

Authors are responsible for providing accurate authorship, affiliation, funding, conflict-of-interest, ethical, copyright, and data-related information, where applicable.

Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted scholarly 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
• Originality and academic relevance
• Basic methodological suitability
• Manuscript structure and presentation
• Compliance with the Author Guidelines
• Authorship and affiliation information
• Required ethical and publication declarations
• Copyright and third-party permission requirements
• Similarity with previously published material

Editorial Compliance Assessment

A manuscript may be returned to the authors for preliminary correction when required information, declarations, formatting, or supporting documentation is incomplete.

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review when it is outside the journal’s scope, does not meet the journal’s basic submission requirements, or contains concerns that prevent responsible further consideration.

A concern identified during screening is assessed in context and is not automatically treated as confirmed misconduct without appropriate evaluation.

Double-Blind Peer Review

A scholarly manuscript considered suitable after initial screening is normally evaluated through the journal’s double-blind peer-review process.

Under this process, authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities, and reviewers are not informed of the authors’ identities. The journal makes reasonable efforts to protect author and reviewer anonymity during the review process.

Authors are responsible for preparing an anonymized manuscript and removing names, affiliations, acknowledgements, file properties, and other information that may reveal their identities.

Reviewer Assignment

Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with subject or methodological expertise relevant to the submitted work.

An additional reviewer may be invited when reviewer recommendations differ substantially, specialist assessment is required, or further evaluation is considered necessary by the responsible editor.

Reviewers are selected according to relevant expertise, ability to provide an independent assessment, availability, and absence of a competing interest that could affect impartial judgment.

Reviewer Evaluation

Reviewers may assess manuscripts on the basis of:

• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Clarity of the research objectives
• Appropriateness of the research design and methods
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation
• Consistency between evidence and conclusions
• Engagement with relevant scholarly literature
• Quality of tables, figures, and supporting information
• Ethical considerations and required declarations
• Clarity, organisation, and overall presentation

Reviewers are expected to provide objective, constructive, confidential, respectful, and evidence-based comments.

Reviewer Recommendations

A reviewer may recommend one of the following:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Reject

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. Reviewers do not independently determine whether a manuscript will be accepted or rejected.

Revision Process

When revision is requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how the reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.

Where an author does not follow a suggested change, the response should provide a clear academic or methodological explanation.

A revised manuscript may be assessed by the responsible editor or returned to one or more reviewers for further evaluation. A request for revision does not guarantee acceptance.

Final Editorial Decision

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

The decision may take into account:

• The manuscript and supporting information
• Reviewer reports and recommendations
• Author responses and revisions
• Originality and scholarly contribution
• Methodological reliability
• Ethical and legal compliance
• Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
• Compliance with the journal’s applicable policies

Submission, external review, or a request for revision does not guarantee acceptance or publication.

Accepted Manuscripts

A manuscript accepted for publication proceeds to the journal’s applicable editorial and publication-preparation procedures.

Authors may be contacted where clarification, correction, updated information, or final publication material is required before the article is released.

Acceptance remains subject to resolution of any material ethical, authorship, copyright, data, or legal concern identified before publication.

Confidentiality

Submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, reviewer identities, unpublished information, and editorial correspondence are treated as confidential editorial materials.

Such information must not be shared with unauthorized persons or used for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Limited disclosure may be necessary where required by law or where reasonably necessary to assess an ethical, legal, copyright, confidentiality, or research-integrity concern.

Conflicts of Interest

Authors, reviewers, editors, Editorial Board members, and editorial staff must disclose relevant financial or non-financial competing interests.

A reviewer or editor who cannot provide an independent and impartial assessment must decline or be removed from the relevant assignment.

Where an editor has a relevant conflict of interest, the manuscript should be transferred to another suitably qualified editor.

Editorial Independence

Editorial decisions must remain independent of advertising, sponsorship, commercial relationships, payments, institutional influence, or other considerations unrelated to the scholarly and ethical evaluation of the manuscript.

Decisions must not be based on an author’s nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political beliefs, institutional status, or other personal characteristics unrelated to the submitted work.

Ethical and Research-Integrity Concerns

Where a concern arises regarding plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, authorship, ethical approval, participant consent, copyright, conflicts of interest, peer-review manipulation, or another publication-integrity issue, the journal may request clarification or supporting information.

Editorial action will depend on the nature of the concern, the available evidence, the stage of manuscript processing, and the journal’s applicable policies.

Authors and other affected persons will normally be given an opportunity to respond before a final editorial decision is made.

Post-Publication Responsibility

Authors should inform the Editorial Office promptly if they identify a significant error or integrity concern affecting a published article.

Where appropriate, the journal may issue a correction, clarification, Expression of Concern, retraction, or another editorial notice in accordance with its applicable post-publication policies.

Commitment to Responsible Scholarly Publishing

TEJAS Journal of Technologies and Humanitarian Science seeks to apply transparent editorial procedures, independent peer review, clear author and reviewer responsibilities, and evidence-based handling of publication concerns.

This editorial process should be read together with the journal’s Peer Review Policy, Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement, Authorship Criteria, Conflict of Interest Policy, Research Misconduct Policy, Article Withdrawal Policy, and Corrections and Retractions Policy.