Peer-Review Policy

Introduction

At TISJ, we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing. The peer-review process is central to ensuring the integrity, quality, and relevance of the research we publish. We follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines to provide a transparent, fair, and ethical review process for all submitted manuscripts.

This document outlines the steps of our peer-review process, the roles and responsibilities of authors, reviewers, and editors, and the ethical considerations involved.

Submission Process

Manuscript Submission

Authors submit their manuscripts in a word document to journal@topitalianscientists.org. They will receive an email confirming the submission.

The content of the articles must be in English language and the references in Roman script.

All submissions must follow the journal’s Author Guidelines, including formatting and ethical requirements.

Initial Screening

The editorial office conducts an initial screening of the manuscript to ensure that it meets the journal’s scope and submission requirements. During this step, the manuscript is checked for completeness, plagiarism and any conflicts of interest.

Assignment to Editors

Editorial Assessment

Once the manuscript passes initial screening, it is assigned to an editor-in-chief or managing editor who evaluates whether the manuscript is suitable for peer review. The editor will consider factors such as originality, significance, and alignment with the journal's scope.

Decision to Proceed

If the manuscript is deemed suitable for peer review, the editor will proceed to assign the manuscript to appropriate peer reviewers. If the manuscript is not suitable for peer review (e.g., low quality, out of scope, or lacks originality), the editor will reject it at this stage.

Selection of Reviewers

Reviewer Selection

The editor selects an independent peer reviewer from the Editorial Board who have relevant expertise in the subject matter of the manuscript.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest (financial, personal, or professional) that could influence their objectivity. Reviewers with a conflict of interest related to the manuscript will not be assigned to review it.

Confidentiality

Reviewers are asked to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and not share or discuss its contents with anyone else during the review process.

The Peer Review Process

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on the following criteria:

• Originality and significance: Does the manuscript provide new insights or significant contributions to the field?
• Methodology: Are the research methods appropriate, robust, and clearly described?
• Data integrity: Are the data reported accurately and ethically?

Clarity and structure

Is the manuscript clearly written, well-organized, and logically structured?

• Ethical considerations: Have ethical guidelines been followed, particularly for studies involving human or animal subjects?

• Literature review: Is the manuscript’s literature review comprehensive and up-to-date?

Review Timeline

Reviewers are typically given 2–4 weeks to complete their review, although this can be extended if necessary. Reviewers are encouraged to provide constructive and actionable feedback to the authors.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

In double-blind peer review, both the authors’ and reviewers’ identities are concealed to ensure impartiality. In open peer review, the identities of reviewers may be revealed to authors, depending on the journal's policy.

Review Outcome

After completing the review, reviewers submit their recommendations to the editor. The possible recommendations are:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without or with minimal revisions.
• Invitation to Revise: The manuscript requires revisions before it can be reconsidered for publication.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards, or its quality is insufficient for publication.

Decision-Making

Editorial Decision

Based on the reviewers' feedback and recommendations, the editor makes one of the following decisions:

• Accept: If the manuscript is recommended for acceptance with no or minor revisions, it is accepted for publication.

• Revisions: If revisions are required, the authors will be asked to address the reviewers’ comments and resubmit the revised manuscript. The revised manuscript may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.

• Reject: If the manuscript is not deemed suitable for publication, the editor will inform the authors of the rejection and provide feedback from the reviewers to explain the decision.

Communication with Authors

The editor communicates the final decision (accept, revise, or reject) to the authors, along with reviewers’ comments and any additional editorial feedback. If revisions are requested, authors are given a specified timeframe to resubmit the manuscript.

Post-Publication Peer Review

Corrections and Retractions

After publication, if significant errors or ethical issues are discovered in a manuscript, the journal follows COPE guidelines for issuing corrections, clarifications, or retractions. Authors must inform the journal promptly if errors are identified in their published work.

Author Response to Review

Authors are required to submit a point-by-point response letter addressing the reviewers’ comments when resubmitting revised manuscripts. This ensures transparency in how the authors have addressed the issues raised by the reviewers.

Ethical Guidelines and Integrity

Compliance with COPE Guidelines

All stakeholders in the peer review process (authors, reviewers, and editors) are expected to adhere to the ethical guidelines set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines are designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and accountability in the publishing process.

Plagiarism and Misconduct

Any instances of plagiarism, falsification of data, or other forms of research misconduct are addressed according to COPE guidelines, including potential retraction of the article.

Transparency and Accountability

The peer review process is transparent and held to high standards of accountability. We ensure that all ethical guidelines are followed and that decisions are made based on scientific merit rather than personal, financial, or professional relationships.

Appeals Process

Appealing a Decision

If an author disagrees with the editorial decision (e.g., rejection or the requested revisions), they may appeal the decision. The appeal will be reviewed by the editorial board, and, in some cases, the manuscript may be sent to an additional reviewer for a second opinion.

Final Decision

The editor-in-chief or managing editor has the final say on all decisions. The journal strives to make all decisions based on scientific merit and the integrity of the research.

Conclusion

At TISJ, we are committed to ensuring a fair, transparent, and rigorous peer-review process. We value the contribution of our reviewers in maintaining the quality and integrity of the research published in our journal. By adhering to the principles outlined in the COPE guidelines, we ensure that our publication process is ethically sound and of the highest scholarly standards.