Peer Review Process

The TASFUED TIJoMS is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through a rigorous, transparent, and fair peer review process. The journal adopts a double-blind peer review system to ensure the quality, originality, validity, and academic integrity of all published manuscripts. This policy outlines the procedures, responsibilities, and ethical standards guiding the review of manuscripts submitted to the journal.

Objectives of Peer Review

The peer review process is designed to:

Ensure academic quality and originality
Improve the clarity and scholarly value of manuscripts
Verify methodological soundness and ethical compliance
Support objective and constructive evaluation
Promote integrity and credibility in academic publishing

Peer Review Model

TIJoMS operates a:

Double-Blind Peer Review System

Under this system:

Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.

All identifying information is removed from manuscripts before review to ensure impartiality and fairness.

Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, manuscripts undergo preliminary evaluation by the Editorial Office to determine:

Relevance to the journal scope
Compliance with author guidelines
Academic quality and originality
Proper formatting and referencing
Ethical compliance
Similarity/plagiarism check

Manuscripts that fail to meet basic requirements may be:

Rejected outright, or
Returned to authors for correction before review

Reviewer Selection

Each manuscript is reviewed by at least:

Two Independent Reviewers

Reviewers are selected based on:

Subject expertise
Academic qualifications
Research experience
Publication record
Absence of conflict of interest

The Editorial Board reserves the right to appoint additional reviewers where necessary.

Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

Originality and Contribution

Novelty of research
Relevance to existing scholarship
Contribution to knowledge

Research Quality

Methodological rigor
Data analysis and interpretation
Validity of findings

Organization and Clarity

Structure and coherence
Language quality
Logical presentation

Ethical Standards

Proper citation and referencing
Ethical approval where applicable
Absence of plagiarism

Relevance

Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend any of the following:

Recommendation	Meaning
Accept	Suitable for publication
Minor Revision	Requires small corrections
Major Revision	Requires substantial improvement
Reject	Not suitable for publication

Final publication decisions remain the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

Revision Process

Authors receiving rev/ision requests must:

Respond to reviewer comments carefully
Submit a revised manuscript within the stipulated time
Provide a response document explaining revisions made

Revised manuscripts may be:

Sent back to reviewers, or
Assessed directly by the editorial team

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to TIJoMS are treated as confidential documents.

Reviewers and editors must:

Not share manuscripts with third parties
Not use unpublished information for personal advantage
Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process

Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any conflict of interest arising from:

Personal relationships
Institutional affiliations
Financial interests
Collaborative relationships with authors

Individuals with conflicts of interest shall not participate in the review process.

Ethical Standards and Plagiarism

>

TIJoMS maintains zero tolerance for:

Plagiarism
Data fabrication or falsification
Duplicate publication
Citation manipulation
Unethical research conduct

All submissions may undergo plagiarism screening using recognized detection software.

Manuscripts found to contain unethical practices may be:

Rejected immediately
Retracted after publication where necessary

Timeliness of Review

Reviewers are expected to:

Accept or decline review invitations promptly
Submit reviews within the assigned review period

The journal strives to complete the review process within:

4–8 weeks

However, timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript revisions.

Editorial Decision

After peer review, the Editor-in-Chief may decide to:

Accept the manuscript
Request revisions
Reject the manuscript

Editorial decisions are based on:

Reviewer reports
Academic merit
Journal priorities
Ethical considerations

The Editor-in-Chief’s decision is final.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting:

A formal appeal Letter
Clear academic justification

The Editorial Board will review appeals objectively and communicate final decisions accordingly.

Reviewer Responsibilities