Papers published in TUP journals undergo a rigorous peer review process, which includes initial checks, preliminary assessments, and anonymous refereeing. TUP journals have endorsed the guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) for reviewers. This peer review process is essential for maintaining the quality of each journal. Managed by researchers and scholars, the process not only ensures high standards but also helps authors identify errors in their work or literature gaps that they may have missed. Different peer-review models can be applied by journals, and they are clarified in the context of journal policies.
Single-anonymous and double-anonymous reviews are mostly employed by TUP journals. In both cases, peer review is conducted prepublication, facilitated by a journal; editors mediate all interactions between reviewers and authors; and the authors of the reviews own the reviews and have the right to choose whether to publish the review information.
● Single-anonymous review. Reviewer identity is not made visible to the authors, author identity is visible to reviewers, and reviewer and author identities are visible to the (decision-making) editors.
● Double-anonymous review. Reviewer identity is not made visible to the authors, author identity is not made visible to the reviewers, and reviewer and author identities are visible to the (decision-making) editors.
The EIC is responsible for maintaining the academic quality of the publication. Specific editorial procedures for each journal are detailed on their respective homepage.
All submissions will be technically checked by the Editorial Office, and the plagiarism check will also be performed via CrossCheck (powered by iThenticate). Only submissions that meet the basic requirements of writing and ethics and are within the Journal’s Aims & Scope can be sent for scientific assessment.
The EBMs of the Journal (i.e., EIC and Associate Editors) act as scientific editors. A scientific editor will be assigned to handle the manuscript. They evaluate the manuscript and decide whether it is worth peer review. The scientific editor selects external reviewers on the basis of their research area and publications and decides whom to assign. Diversity, including geographical region and sex, will be considered when choosing reviewers. The authors could alternatively recommend reviewers or request some exclusion from consideration. The scientific editors will consider such suggestions and requests of reviewers only if given proper reasons and meet the research integrity requirements, but they are not obligated to fulfill them all.
All scientific materials, including the main document, tables and figures, and supplementary files for review, will be sent for peer review. A minimum of two peer reviews are expected. When it is not possible to obtain two independent peer reviews, the scientific editor may act as a second reviewer or make a decision on the basis of one report, if only the scientific editor has sufficient knowledge in this area, the report is trustworthy, and the reviewer is not suggested by the author.
A manuscript may receive a decision of Reject at any stage throughout the peer-review process. It could be made by the Editorial Office after technical and plagiarism checks or by the scientific editor at the other stages. Decisions of Accept and Revision (minor/major) could be made only by a scientific editor, who is the EIC in most journals. The EIC should be responsible for all the decisions even if they are made by a Guest Editor.
