Peer Review Process

TJCSM upholds rigorous standards in its peer review process to ensure the quality of purposeful research content. The journal employs selection procedures devoid of bias, prioritizing the scientific merits of articles over institutional, regional, or national affiliations.

Utilizing a single-blind review system, TJCSM reveals the author's identity to reviewers while keeping the author unaware of the reviewers' identities. This approach enhances transparency, allowing reviewers to assess the author's prior work and evaluate the novelty and contribution of the submitted work. Authors, in turn, must exhibit confidence in their work, acknowledging that their identity is disclosed during the review.

The EDAS system is employed in research management, including the use of the Turnitin system for similarity checks. Any research exceeding a 20% similarity threshold is rejected by the Editorial Board. If the similarity is below 20%, the report is reviewed to gauge the author's adherence to publishing ethics.

Upon passing the similarity assessment, the initial review by journal editors focuses on scientific content, alignment with the journal's themes, language, and adherence to publishing ethics. Subsequently, the article undergoes a peer review by at least three experts, who have 30 days to provide their evaluations through the EDAS system. Reviewers are carefully selected based on expertise and past evaluations.

The Editor-in-Chief decides on manuscript acceptance, revision requests, or rejection based on reviewer comments. If revisions are needed, a second round may occur, with resubmission possible after meeting requirements. Additional reviewers may be enlisted if initial feedback is insufficient.

The final decision hinges on scientific and technical soundness, evaluating language safety, research methodology, and the presentation of results. Authors can respond to reviewer comments point by point if disagreements arise.

Possible outcomes based on reviewer reports include unaltered publication, publication with minor revisions within 30 days, conditional acceptance with major revisions (60-day deadline), or outright rejection due to unsuitability.

The Editor-in-Chief, assisted by the Editorial Board, makes final decisions after thorough discussion. In challenging cases, the Editorial Board provides support, advice, and may participate in the peer-review process.

Appeals for revision cases are considered if the Editor-in-Chief's decision is perceived as erroneous. Authors can email detailed explanations to the Editor-in-Chief, who, in consultation with the Editorial Board, reevaluates the decision for fairness and accuracy.