Peer Review

Statement of Peer Review

All research articles published in ISTP journals undergo a rigorous double-blind peer-review process, following an initial editorial screening.

The manuscript submission and peer-review workflow generally includes the following stages:

The author prepares and submits the manuscript.
The editorial office or editor conducts an initial screening.
Suitable manuscripts are sent to independent reviewers with expertise in the relevant field.
Reviewers assess the manuscript according to the journal’s guidelines and provide recommendations.
Based on the reviewers’ reports, the editor decides whether the manuscript should be accepted, revised, resubmitted, or rejected.
The decision, together with reviewer comments, is communicated to the author.
If revisions are required, the author submits a revised version.
Once the manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to production and publication.

Note: All manuscripts submitted to ISTP journals are evaluated through a double-blind peer-review system, in which neither authors nor reviewers know each other’s identities.

Peer-Review Process

Manuscripts are sent for peer review only after they successfully pass the initial editorial assessment for compliance with the journal’s scope, structure, and submission requirements. Every effort is made to complete this screening promptly and efficiently.

Under normal circumstances, the peer-review process takes approximately four weeks, although in exceptional cases it may extend to up to two months. The average period from manuscript submission to publication is approximately 90 days, depending on the nature of the revisions and the editorial process.

Reviewing Procedure

Each submitted manuscript is assessed on the basis of the following criteria:

originality and academic contribution, including plagiarism screening
relevance to the aims and scope of the journal
soundness of theory and methodology
clarity, coherence, and quality of analysis
scholarly presentation, grammar, and style

All ISTP journals are committed to protecting the integrity of peer review and maintaining the highest editorial standards. Once a manuscript is considered suitable for external evaluation, it is reviewed by at least two independent and anonymous experts in the relevant field under a double-blind review model.

The process generally follows these steps:

The author submits a manuscript.
The editor assigns the manuscript to reviewers.
The reviewers evaluate the manuscript and submit their reports.
The editor makes a decision based on the reviewers’ recommendations.
If revision is required, the author is asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript, addressing reviewer comments clearly and carefully.
A manuscript may undergo more than one round of peer review if necessary.
Once the manuscript satisfies the scientific and editorial standards of the journal, it is accepted for publication.

Peer Review

All submitted manuscripts are subject to peer review. The purpose of peer review is to assist the editor in making an informed editorial decision and, through constructive feedback, to help authors improve the quality of their work.

ISTP journals use double-blind peer review, meaning that reviewers do not know the identity of the authors, and authors do not know the identity of the reviewers. Each manuscript is normally evaluated by at least two reviewers. The standard review period is typically four weeks, although this timeframe may be adjusted during the editorial process if necessary.

The selection of reviewers is at the discretion of the editors. Reviewers are chosen on the basis of their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. As a rule, reviewers should not be affiliated with the same institution as the authors and should not have recent collaborative publications with any of the authors.

Reviewers must not have any conflict of interest relating to the manuscript, the authors, or the funding sources associated with the research. If such a conflict exists, the reviewer must inform the editor immediately.

Any reviewer who feels unqualified to review a manuscript, or who cannot complete the review within the required timeframe, should promptly notify the editor.

Reviews must be objective, fair, and clearly reasoned. Personal criticism of the author is inappropriate. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive comments supported by relevant academic arguments.

All manuscripts received for review must be treated as strictly confidential.

Editorial Handling of Manuscripts

Authors submit manuscripts to the editorial office through the journal’s submission system. Upon receipt, an acknowledgment is sent to confirm submission.

The Editor-in-Chief, often with support from section editors, associate editors, or co-editors, conducts an initial review of the manuscript. At this stage, the manuscript is checked to determine whether it fits the scope of the journal and whether it complies with the journal’s formal requirements. Manuscripts that are clearly outside the journal’s scope or that fail to meet essential submission standards may be rejected at this stage. In such cases, the author is informed of the decision and the reason for rejection.

If the manuscript is suitable for further consideration, it is prepared for peer review. Before review, the editorial office checks whether the manuscript follows the journal style, includes all required elements such as abstract, keywords, and references, and applies the correct anonymization procedures. If required information is missing, the author may be asked to correct the submission before external review begins.

The manuscript is then sent to reviewers. Reviewers evaluate the paper and submit their reports to the editor. The time allowed for review may vary by discipline, generally ranging from 2 to 6 weeks.

Based on the reviewers’ comments, the editor may decide to:

accept the manuscript without revision
accept the manuscript subject to minor or major revisions
request resubmission for further evaluation
reject the manuscript

If the manuscript is accepted, an acceptance letter is sent to the author and the final version proceeds to production. If revisions are requested, the authors are expected to revise the manuscript in line with the reviewers’ comments and resubmit it within the specified timeframe. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment.

Rejected manuscripts are archived, and the author receives a decision letter explaining the basis for the rejection.

Production Process After Acceptance

Once accepted, the manuscript moves to the production stage.

The Copy Editor checks the manuscript for language, referencing style, formatting, and consistency with the journal’s editorial standards.
The Layout Editor prepares the manuscript for publication by organizing the text, tables, figures, and links into the final article format, usually PDF and other required formats.
The Proof Editor performs a final check to ensure that all editorial and production stages have been completed correctly before publication.

Independent Review and Quality Control

All reviewers evaluate manuscripts independently and remain unaware of each other’s identities. If two reviewers reach substantially different conclusions, such as one recommending acceptance and the other rejection, the editor may appoint one or more additional reviewers.

The editorial team is responsible for ensuring the quality and fairness of peer review. If an author raises serious concerns regarding the objectivity or academic quality of a review, the editorial board will assess the matter carefully. Where necessary, additional reviewers may be appointed.

Basic Principles for Reviewers

Peer reviewers are expected to:

accept review assignments only when they have the necessary expertise and can complete the review within a reasonable time
respect the confidentiality of the peer-review process and not disclose any details of the manuscript or the review
not use information obtained during peer review for personal, institutional, or commercial advantage
declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest
remain free from bias relating to the authors’ nationality, gender, religion, political beliefs, institutional affiliation, or other personal characteristics
provide reviews that are objective, respectful, and constructive
contribute to peer review as part of their professional responsibility to the academic community
provide accurate information about their qualifications and expertise
understand that impersonation or misrepresentation during peer review constitutes serious misconduct

Guidelines for Reviewers

Reviewers should begin by considering whether any conflict of interest exists. If so, they must promptly notify the Editor-in-Chief.

Each manuscript is normally sent to two independent reviewers under a double-blind review model, in which reviewer and author identities remain concealed from one another. ISTP maintains this policy in order to support fairness, independence, and critical academic evaluation.

Reviewers are generally expected to complete their reports within 2 to 6 weeks. If a reviewer cannot meet the deadline, the editor should be informed without delay.

Reviewers must pay close attention to ethical standards. If they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, or any other ethical concern, they should immediately report it to the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer identities, titles, and institutional affiliations may be recorded by the editorial office for internal documentation, but this information remains confidential and is not disclosed to authors.

When evaluating a manuscript, reviewers should consider:

whether the manuscript fits the aims and scope of the journal
whether the work is original and scientifically relevant
whether the research contributes meaningfully to the field
whether the article would be of interest to the journal’s readership
whether the study is clearly structured and written in acceptable academic English
whether the manuscript includes essential sections such as abstract, methodology, results, and conclusions, where appropriate

Reviewers should complete the review form carefully and provide a balanced academic assessment. Their role is not only to judge suitability for publication but also to help improve the manuscript through useful and constructive suggestions.

At the end of the review, reviewers are asked to make one of the following recommendations:

Accept without revision – the manuscript is suitable for publication in its current form
Accept after revision – the manuscript can be published after minor or moderate revisions
Resubmit for review – the manuscript requires substantial revision and should be reconsidered after resubmission
Reject – the manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal

Revised Manuscripts

When authors revise a manuscript in response to reviewer comments, they are expected to submit a revised version together with a clear response explaining the changes made. Where appropriate, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for confirmation that the concerns have been adequately addressed.

Inability to Review

If a reviewer is unable to evaluate a manuscript for any reason, they should notify the editorial office immediately. If the review cannot be completed within the agreed timeframe, prompt communication is essential to avoid unnecessary delays in the editorial process.

Resolving Inconsistencies in Reviews

If the authors raise serious and reasonable objections to reviewer reports, the editorial board may examine whether the reviews are objective, fair, and academically sound. If there is doubt regarding the quality or impartiality of a review, the Editor-in-Chief may appoint additional reviewers.

Additional reviewers may also be assigned when the recommendations of the original reviewers are substantially inconsistent, particularly when one reviewer recommends acceptance and another recommends rejection.

Final Decision

The final decision regarding the acceptance, revision, or rejection of a manuscript rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.