Peer-Review Process
1. Peer Review Process
TUJNAS adheres to a rigorous double-blind peer-review system – neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities. Upon submission, each manuscript is initially screened by the Editor-in-Chief or Editorial Director to ensure basic compliance with the journal’s scope and standards. If the submission passes this initial check (including plagiarism screening), it is assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers in the relevant field. These reviewers are selected from the journal’s database of qualified referees or the Editorial Board, avoiding any conflicts of interest.
Each reviewer evaluates the manuscript based on originality, scientific rigor, methodology, significance of results, and clarity of presentation. Reviewers provide a detailed, constructive report along with a recommendation (e.g., accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject). They use a standardized Manuscript Review Form to ensure all key aspects (novelty, accuracy, ethical compliance, etc.) are covered and to maintain consistency in the review process. TUJNAS places strong emphasis on the ethical responsibilities of reviewers: referees must treat the manuscript confidentially, assess it objectively, and disclose any potential conflicts of interest to the editor.
After the peer reviews are received, the handling editor (or Editor-in-Chief) evaluates the reports. The editorial decision is based on the reviewers’ recommendations and the editor’s own assessment of the manuscript’s fit for the journal. The possible decisions include acceptance, request for revision (with either minor or major changes), or rejection. The decision, along with anonymized reviewer comments, is communicated to the corresponding author. TUJNAS strives to complete this initial review cycle promptly – typically within 4–6 weeks – to give authors a timely response (actual times can vary, and authors will be informed of delays).
If revisions are requested, authors should submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments. The revised submission may be sent back to the original reviewers (or new reviewers, if needed) for a second round of evaluation. Final acceptance is decided by the Editor-in-Chief when the manuscript meets all scientific and ethical standards. Accepted articles are then professionally copy-edited and scheduled for publication in an upcoming issue.
This transparent peer review procedure ensures that all TUJNAS articles meet high academic quality standards. By clearly outlining our double-blind review and editorial decision process, we affirm our commitment to fairness, objectivity, and scientific rigor, in line with COPE guidelines and industry best practices.
TUJNAS uses a double-blind peer-review process. Each manuscript that passes initial editorial screening, including scope and plagiarism checks, is sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. If a manuscript is submitted by an editor, editorial board member, reviewer, journal staff member, or institutional insider, the manuscript is handled by an independent editor with no conflict of interest.
2. Peer Review Anonymity
TUJNAS works according to the "double-blind peer reviewing" procedure for submissions of all manuscripts to the journal. All manuscripts are subject to critical, anonymous peer review. It is understood that the final decision on the suitability of a manuscript rests solely with the editors. The journal disapproves of attempts by authors to discover the identity of reviewers.
All submitted articles are subjected to an extensive peer review in consultation with the journal’s editorial board members and independent external referees (usually two reviewers). All manuscripts are assessed rapidly, and the decision, based on all the peer reviewers' comments, is taken by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Director and is then conveyed to the author(s).
As part of the review process, the "Manuscript Review Form", which contains initial assessments, is completed by the reviewers, in addition to their detailed comments.
Submissions from the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Director/ Editorial Board Members will undergo independent peer review and be submitted to another Editor for his/her decision on acceptance.
