Peer Review Policy

Review model

TJPL operates double-anonymized peer review: the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from one another throughout the process. Authors must therefore submit a manuscript file from which their identities and any other identifying information have been removed.

The review process

  1. Editorial screening. Each submission is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or a handling editor for fit with the journal’s scope, completeness, adherence to ethical and formatting requirements, and originality (including a similarity screen). Manuscripts that fall outside the scope or do not meet basic standards may be declined at this stage with a brief explanation.
  2. Assignment of reviewers. Manuscripts that pass screening are sent to at least two independent expert reviewers selected for their knowledge of the topic and methods and for the absence of any conflict of interest.
  3. Assessment. Reviewers evaluate the originality and significance of the contribution, the soundness of the theoretical framing, the appropriateness and rigour of the methods and analyses, the validity of the conclusions, the clarity of presentation, and adherence to ethical and reporting standards.
  4. Decision. On the basis of the reviewers’ reports, the handling editor recommends one of: accept; minor revision; major revision; or reject. The Editor-in-Chief issues the final decision. Authors receive the reviewers’ comments with the decision.
  5. Revision and re-review. Revised manuscripts must include a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and are, where feasible, returned to the original reviewers.

Timelines

The journal aims to provide a first decision within approximately eight to ten weeks of submission. These targets are indicative; the journal keeps authors informed of any expected delay.

Editors and reviewers as authors

Submissions authored by editors or editorial board members undergo the same review process as any other submission and are handled by an editor with no conflict of interest; the authoring editor is excluded entirely from the handling, reviewer assignment, and decision.

Recognition of reviewers

The journal values its reviewers and, with their consent, supports recognition of their reviewing activity, including through external reviewer-recognition services.