Peer Review Process
The journal uses a double-blind peer review process for all submitted manuscripts. This means that during the review process, both the reviewers and authors remain anonymous to each other. A more detailed information about our peer review process is provided below.
Submission and Initial Assessment Stage
Upon submission, the Editor conducts an initial assessment to determine the suitability of the manuscript based on its alignment with the journal’s aims and scope. The manuscript is also evaluated for adherence to formatting guidelines, language clarity, and compliance with submission requirements. Research quality, originality, and significance are also assessed. Manuscripts failing to meet these basic criteria may be returned for revision or rejected outright, allowing authors to consider submission to alternative journals.
Peer Review Stage
Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment proceed to the double-blind peer review process. The handling editor selects two independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are expected to evaluate the manuscript within two to three weeks based on novelty, originality, contribution to existing knowledge, ethical considerations, methodology, and clarity. The review outcome may result in one of the following recommendations:
- acceptance without any changes;
- acceptance with minor revisions;
- acceptance with major revisions; or
- rejection.
If reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, a second round of peer review may be initiated.
Revision Stage
Authors receive reviewer feedback and are given a specified period to revise their manuscripts. Minor revisions typically require one week, while major revisions may take up to two weeks. Once revised, the manuscript is resubmitted for further evaluation by the reviewers or the handling editor, ensuring all suggested improvements have been addressed before final approval.
Final Decision Stage
After the revision process, the Editor-in-Chief makes the final decision regarding the manuscript's acceptance. If the manuscript meets all quality standards and adequately addresses reviewer comments, it is formally accepted. Otherwise, further revisions may be requested, or the manuscript may be rejected if it still falls short of the journal’s standards.
Copyediting, Layout Editing, and Proofreading Stage
Accepted manuscripts proceed to the production stage, where they undergo copyediting to ensure linguistic accuracy and clarity. Layout editing follows, ensuring adherence to the journal’s formatting guidelines. A final round of proofreading is conducted before publication, during which authors may review the final version to confirm the accuracy of the content.
Complaints and Appeals
The journal has a structured policy for handling complaints and appeals. Authors who wish to appeal an editorial decision must contact the Editor-in-Chief, providing justifications for reconsideration. The appeal process involves re-evaluating the manuscript along with the peer reviewers' comments, with the possibility of additional peer review if necessary. The Editor-in-Chief’s final decision following an appeal is conclusive. All complaints are acknowledged within two working days and addressed fairly and promptly. Email: editorial@taapublications.com
This structured peer review process ensures that published research meets high academic and ethical standards while offering authors a transparent and constructive evaluation system.