Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process

All submissions to TEOSOFIA undergo a rigorous peer-review process to ensure the quality and validity of the published research. The journal employs a double-blind peer review process, meaning that both authors and reviewers remain anonymous. The review process is carried out by experts in the relevant fields of study, who evaluate the submitted manuscripts based on their scientific merit, originality, and relevance to the journal's scope.

Initial evaluation:  Upon receipt of a manuscript, the editorial board will conduct an initial evaluation to ensure that the manuscript meets the scope and focus of the journal and adheres to the publication conditions. Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements will be rejected without further review. The manuscript with a similarity greater than 20% will be rejected at this stage. The editorial office will review the article's formatting and citation styles to ensure adherence to the specified author guidelines. If the required conditions are unmet, the manuscript will be returned to the author for reformatting and resubmission. If the manuscript passes approval, it will be sent to reviewers.

Assignment of reviewers: The editorial board will select two or more independent reviewers who are experts in the relevant field of study and have experience in the research area covered by the manuscript. The reviewers will be blinded to the authors' identities, and the authors will be blinded to the reviewers' identities. The listing of the names of the authors, acknowledgments, and references to author contributions must be removed from the manuscript and posted in the Title page file. The assigned editor will then send invitations to reviewers. The invited reviewers are expected to be affiliated with different institutions from those of the corresponding authors. Moreover, reviewers will consider the invitation according to their own scientific expertise, any potential conflicts of interest, and other relevant criteria. Our journal is committed to assigning reviewers within two weeks.

Review process: The reviewers will evaluate the manuscript based on its scientific quality, originality, validity, and relevance to the field of study. The reviewers are usually given two weeks to review the research work. They will provide constructive feedback to the authors to help improve the manuscript and may recommend:

1. Accepted: means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication.

2. Accepted with minor revisions: means that the manuscript is acceptable for publication once it is revised in response to the reviewers’ concerns.

3. Accepted with major revisions: means that substantive inadequacies in the manuscript, such as data analysis, the main theory used, and rewriting of paragraphs, need to be revised.

4. Rejected: means that the manuscript is not acceptable for publication, or the given reviews relate to very basic issues.

Decision: The editor-in-chief will make the final decision on whether to accept, reject, or request a revision of the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and the manuscript's adherence to the publication conditions. If the comments/responses of the reviewers differ significantly, the academic editor may invite an additional individual to review the manuscript before making the final decision. The academic editor will send a decision (with rejection, acceptance, or the need for major or minor revisions) to the author via the online system, along with any relevant comments submitted by the reviewers. As our journal adheres to the double-blind peer-review principle, all comments and suggestions are kept anonymous. The average time from submission to the first decision will be one month, and from acceptance to publishing will be 2-4 weeks.

Revision process: If the manuscript is accepted with revision, the authors will be asked to revise the manuscript based on the feedback provided by the reviewers and resubmit it for further review. Re-submitted material must include the revised manuscript with highlighted changes and a rebuttal letter. The author is usually given two weeks (for minor revisions) and four weeks (for major revisions) to revise the manuscript. The major revised manuscript will undergo a second round of review by the same reviewers, who will evaluate whether the revisions adequately address their feedback. For minor revisions, the subsequent review process may not be necessary.

Final decision: At this stage, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the Board of Editors to ensure that the author has addressed the reviewers’ concerns. In this final decision, the manuscript may still be rejected if the author has not made the necessary revisions in a serious manner. 

Production: Once the manuscript has been deemed acceptable by the Board of Editors, it will undergo proofreading, copyediting, and layout. 

Publication confirmation: At this stage, the final layout of the manuscript will be resent to the author to ensure that the content is in accordance with the author’s writing. At this stage, the author may revise any typographical errors found in the final manuscript. Once confirmation from the author is received, the Editorial Secretary will process the manuscript for online publication on the website, as well as for print publication. 

This peer review process ensures that all manuscripts submitted to TEOSOFIA are evaluated to the highest standards of scientific integrity and ethical conduct, and that only the highest quality research is published.