Peer-Review and Editorial Decision Policy
1. Review model
TUJNAS uses double-anonymized peer review for research and review articles. Author identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewer identities are concealed from authors. The journal may identify an article type that follows a different process only when that process is stated publicly before submission.
2. Initial assessment
The editorial office checks completeness, scope, originality, reporting requirements, ethics declarations, competing interests, authorship information, anonymization, and similarity concerns. The Editor-in-Chief or a delegated non-conflicted editor may reject a submission without external review when it is outside scope, technically unsuitable, ethically unacceptable, insufficiently original, or materially inconsistent with the author guidelines.
3. Handling editor and independent reviewers
A manuscript that passes initial assessment is assigned to a qualified, non-conflicted handling editor. The handling editor coordinates the process and does not count as an independent reviewer. Each research or review article must be assessed by at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers may be drawn from the wider scholarly community or, where appropriate, from the Advisory Board. Reviewers are not allowed to be drawn from Editorial Board members. Every reviewer must have relevant expertise, independence, and no disqualifying conflict.
4. Confidentiality and artificial intelligence
Editors and reviewers must keep manuscripts, data, correspondence, and reports confidential. They must not upload unpublished material to a public generative-AI system or another service that does not provide appropriate confidentiality and data protection. Any permitted AI assistance must be declared to the handling editor and may not replace expert judgment.
5. Decisions and revision
Possible decisions are reject without external review, reject after review, major revision, minor revision, or accept. Authors must provide a point-by-point response and a marked and clean revision where requested. When reports conflict materially, the handling editor may seek an additional independent review. The Editor-in-Chief or an authorized non-conflicted editor makes the final decision based on the complete record; reviewers advise but do not decide.
6. Timelines
TUJNAS aims to provide an initial peer-review decision within four to six weeks, but this is a target rather than a guarantee. Accuracy, reviewer availability, ethical review, and the complexity of revisions may affect timing.
7. Submissions involving journal personnel or Thamar University
Submissions authored by the Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Director, editors, board members, reviewers, journal staff, publisher officials, or staff of Thamar University must be assigned to an independent handling editor with no relevant conflict. Conflicted persons must not access the file, select reviewers, view reports, communicate decisions, or influence the outcome. The same review standards apply.
8. Appeals, complaints, special issues, and post-publication concerns
Editorial appeals, complaints about process or conduct, special-issue submissions, and post-publication concerns are handled under the journal’s separate published policies. The ordinary peer-review, ethics, licensing, recusal, and correction rules apply to all special issues and conference-derived content.
9. Separation of Editorial Board and Peer-Review Roles
TUJNAS maintains a formal separation between Editorial Board membership and peer-review responsibilities. Editorial Board members do not act as peer reviewers for manuscripts submitted to TUJNAS. Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are evaluated by at least two independent expert reviewers selected based on subject expertise, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest. Editorial Board members may advise on journal policy, scope, governance, and editorial development but do not replace, constitute, or count as the independent reviewers required for a manuscript.
