Peer Review Policy
Policies / Peer Review
Peer Review Policy
Single-blind review by at least two independent experts — the model, process, timelines, reviewer selection and conduct.
Independent peer review is the principal safeguard of quality at TECS. It supports the Editor-in-Chief in reaching well-founded decisions and helps authors to strengthen their work. This policy describes how review is conducted.
Model of review
The journal operates a single-blind model: reviewers are aware of the authors’ identities, while the identities of reviewers are withheld from authors unless a reviewer elects to be named.
How review is conducted
| ▸ | Each submission first undergoes an editorial check for suitability and originality, including similarity screening. |
| ▸ | Manuscripts that clear this stage are assigned to at least two independent experts whose competence matches the subject and methods. |
| ▸ | Reviewers evaluate originality and significance, the soundness of the method and analysis, the rigour and reproducibility of the evaluation, the validity of the claims, clarity, and compliance with research ethics. |
| ▸ | The Editor-in-Chief weighs the assessments and reaches the decision; reviewer recommendations are advisory. |
| ▸ | Authors receive the reviewers’ comments with the decision and, where revision is invited, respond point by point; the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers. |
Indicative timelines
Reviewers are asked to return their assessments within three weeks, and the Editor-in-Chief aims to communicate a first decision within approximately four to six weeks of submission. These are service targets that vary with reviewer availability and manuscript complexity; an optional Fast-Track Review service expedites assessment for a separate fee without influencing the outcome.
Selecting and managing reviewers
Reviewers are chosen for their expertise and freedom from competing interests, and must decline where a conflict exists or where they cannot assess the work objectively and in confidence. Authors may nominate or ask the journal to exclude particular reviewers, at the editor’s discretion.
Reviewer conduct and confidentiality
A manuscript under review is a privileged, unpublished document. Reviewers must preserve its confidentiality, base their critique on evidence, report any suspected ethical breach, and must not enter any part of a manuscript, its data or its code into generative-AI tools or delegate their judgement to such tools (see the Generative AI Policy).
Appeals
Authors who consider a decision to be mistaken may seek a review under the Complaints & Appeals policy.
