Peer Review Policy
TJMPS employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. Neither the authors nor the reviewers are aware of each other’s identity at any stage of the review. This policy is designed to minimise bias and ensure that editorial decisions are based solely on the quality, originality, and significance of the work.
Review Process
|
Step 1 — Initial Screening Upon submission, manuscripts are screened by the editorial office for completeness, adherence to formatting guidelines, and alignment with the journal’s scope. Submissions that do not meet basic requirements may be returned to authors before peer review. A plagiarism check is conducted at this stage. |
|
Step 2 — Assignment to Reviewers Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a handling editor, who invites two independent reviewers with relevant subject-matter expertise. Reviewers are selected based on their publication record, methodological competence, and absence of conflicts of interest. |
|
Step 3 — Peer Review Reviewers evaluate the manuscript on originality, methodological soundness, theoretical contribution, clarity, and adherence to ethical standards. Each reviewer submits a structured report with a recommendation: Accept, Minor Revisions, Major Revisions, or Reject. |
|
Step 4 — Editorial Decision The handling editor considers both reviewer reports and makes a recommendation to the Chief Editor. The final decision is communicated to the corresponding author along with reviewer comments (anonymised). Authors are encouraged to respond to all reviewer comments point-by-point when submitting revisions. |
|
Step 5 — Publication Accepted manuscripts undergo copyediting, typesetting, and a final author proof review before online publication. Articles are published under a CC BY 4.0 licence and assigned a DOI. |
Timelines
TJMPS aims to provide an initial editorial decision within 4–6 weeks of submission. Authors who are asked to revise their manuscripts are typically given 3 weeks for minor revisions and 6 weeks for major revisions. While we strive to meet these targets, timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity.
Reviewer Guidelines
Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, respectful, and evidence-based feedback. Reviews should address the manuscript’s strengths and limitations with specific, actionable suggestions for improvement. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality throughout the process. TJMPS acknowledges the contribution of its reviewers annually.
