Open peer review

In a nutshell...

Based on the NISO's ‘Standard terminology for peer review’, the peer process at the TSR can be described as:

  • Identity transparency: single anonymized
  • Reviewer interacts with: editor
  • Review information published: reviewer identity, editor identity
  • Post publication commenting: none (though response letters might partly fill this gap).

...and in more detail

External peer reviewing is an essential part of the publication process at the TSR, safeguarding the quality of the journal contents.

The process starts with the editor-in-chief assigning a handling editor (or inviting a guest editor, see more on that below) to handle the manuscript. The handling editor makes the first screening to decide whether the submitted manuscript is relevant for the journal and its quality is high enough to be considered for publication. If the manuscript is desk-rejected, the editor provides some motivation explaining the decision.

The manuscripts accepted for review are sent to at least two independent external reviewers, experts in the subject. Based on reviewers' recommendations, the editor decides whether the manuscript should be Accepted, Revised or Rejected. In case of doubts or contradicting reviews, the editor may approach an additional reviewer. The reviewers' comments are sent to the authors together with the editor decision.

The handling editor has the facilitating role, but also the final decision power. He/she may override some of the reviewer's recommendations. Neither is there an ambition to force the authors to strictly follow each of the reviewers' suggestions; rather, the general spirit of improving the scientific quality by taking into consideration constructive comments from the peers is pursued.

A guest editor is not a member of the regular editorial team and is usually invited when regular editors have conflict of interests, or in case of an agreed arrangement related to a special volume. However, all the functions and responsibilities remain the same. The journal provides training and guidance to the guest editor to ensure the same quality standards being applied. This is usually done through an assigned ‘tutor’ from the regular editorial team members, who oversees the process yet do not interfere with the decisions.

The TSR aims at the final decision to be taken after the first round of revisions. It is expected that by then it becomes evident for the editor whether the paper is ‘publishable in general’ (despite minor imperfections) or it is not likely to ever improve to meet the quality standards of the journal. In both cases, little is to be gained by extending the process with additional review rounds. In rare cases, for example if substantial changes have been made to the original text, the second review round might be motivated.

To acknowledge the efforts being made, the TSR journal makes public the names of both the handling editor and the reviewers of the accepted papers. If a paper is published against the recommendation of a reviewer, his/her name is not disclosed. Neither are revealed the names of the reviewers for the papers that have been rejected.

The detailed instructions provided to the reviewers can be found here. The handling editor is considered to be a part of the reviewing process, thus the ethical guidelines for reviewers (competing interests, confidentiality, accountability, etc.) apply to the editor to the same extent.

In case the authors suspect some misconduct during the reviewing process or disagree with the editor's decision, they may lodge an appeal and request the situation to be investigated. Read more about the procedures for complaints and appeals here.