Editorial Processes

TATuP is committed to editorial independence, and strives in all cases to prevent this principle from being compromised through conflicts of interest, fear, or any other corporate or political influence. Any person involved in TATuP’s editorial processes is required to respect this commitment to editorial independence. Further information about complaints and appeals during and after the editorial process can be found below in the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Editorial processes for manuscripts in the journal section "Special topic" with peer-review

1. Corresponding authors submit an abstract proposal for a contribution to a proposed TATuP "Special topic" to the editorial team in response to the journal's current call for abstracts (found at announcements).
2. "Special topic" editors pre-select potential contributions from the submitted abstracts on the basis of thematic remit and anticipated scientific quality. The editorial team then invite the corresponding authors of the selected abstracts to submit a full manuscript for the “Special topic” for peer review, and reject the remaining abstracts. Unsuccessful authors may resubmit at any time to the journal section “Research”. (Authors can expect a response within approx. two weeks.)
3. Invited corresponding authors are given a maximum period of three months within which to submit their full manuscript. Authors must use the TATuP Word template and comply with TATuP’s publication ethics as well as scientific and formal editorial standards (see submission check list and author guidelines).
4. Submitted manuscripts are pre-checked by the "Special topic" editors for their scientific quality and by the editorial team to ensure they comply with the journal's publication ethics as well as its formal editorial standards. (Approximate timescale - two weeks.)
   TATuP uses the plagiarism checking tool iThenticate to check submissions against previous
   publications. "Special topic" editors and the editorial team reserve the right to reject manuscripts that contain suspected plagiarism or do not comply with the required criteria.
5. If the pre-check is successful, then the corresponding author is informed that their manuscript will enter the double-open ("non-blind") peer review process. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)
6. Reviews are forwarded to the corresponding author within approx. two weeks. If the outcome of the peer review process is positive ("acceptance without revisions", or "acceptance with minor or major revisions"), the corresponding author is granted up to six weeks for revisions. If the reviews are conflicting ("acceptance without revisions" and "rejection"), the "Special topic" editors draw on their expertise to produce a third review. Two negative peer reviews result in the rejection of the manuscript, with the corresponding author being notified.
7. The final manuscript version is checked for scientific quality by the "Special topic" editors and for compliance with the journal's publication ethics and formal editorial standards by the editorial team. (The corresponding author will be notified within approx. two weeks.)
8. If the manuscript meets the scientific quality and complies with the journal's publication ethics and formal editorial standards, then the corresponding author is notified and the editorial copy editing and external layout processes begin. (Approximate timescale - three weeks.)
9. If, after a prolonged period of revisions, the manuscript still does not meet the reviewers' scientific requirements and/or does not comply with the journal's publication ethics and/or formal editorial standards, it may be rejected outright by the "Special topic" editors. Alternatively, corresponding authors may be offered the opportunity of additional time to revise the manuscript with view to a postponed final check and eventual publication in a later issue of the journal in the peer-reviewed "Research" section.
10. The corresponding author receives the galley proofs, and gives print approval within one week.
11. The manuscript is published in the upcoming issue of the journal in print and online. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)

Editorial processes for manuscripts in the journal section "Research" with peer-review

1. Corresponding authors may submit a manuscript at any time to the journal's editorial team. The corresponding author uses the TATuP Word template and complies with TATuP's publication ethics as well as scientific and formal editorial standards (see submission check list and author guidelines).
2. Upon receipt, the editorial team, if necessary in cooperation with disciplinary experts from the journal's editorial board or scientific advisory board, pre-checks the submitted manuscript in view to its thematic fit with the journal's remit, scientific quality and compliance with the journal's publication ethics as well as scientific and formal editorial standards. TATuP uses the plagiarism checking tool iThenticate to check submissions against previous publications. "Special topic" editors and the editorial team reserve the right to reject manuscripts that contain suspected plagiarism or do not comply with content requirements, formal specifications, or quality standards of the journal. (The corresponding author will be notified within approx. two weeks.)
3. If the pre-check is successful, then the corresponding author is notified that their manuscript will enter the double-open ("non-blind") peer review process. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)
4. If the outcome of the peer review process is positive ("acceptance without revisions", or "acceptance with minor or major revisions"), the editorial team forwards the reviews to the corresponding author within approx. two weeks. The corresponding author is then given the necessary time for revisions. If the peer reviews are conflicting ("acceptance without revisions" and "rejection") the editorial team will request a third review, usually issued by one of the members of the editorial board or the scientific advisory board. If the manuscript receives two negative peer reviews, it is rejected and the corresponding author notified.
5. In case of reviews asking for major revisions, the revised manuscript will be sent again to the reviewer to ask her/his acceptance for publication with regard to scientific content.
6. The final manuscript version is checked by the editorial team for compliance with the journal's publication ethics, scientific and formal editorial standards, if necessary in cooperation with disciplinary experts from the journal's editorial board or scientific advisory board. (Approximate timescale - three weeks.)
7. If the manuscript meets the scientific quality and complies with editorial standards, then the corresponding author is notified and the editorial copy editing and external layout processes begin.
   If, after a prolonged period of revisions, the manuscript still does not meet the reviewers' scientific requirements and/or editorial standards it may be rejected by the journal's managing editor in coordination with the editorial board.
8. The corresponding author receives the galley proofs, and gives print approval within one week.
9. The manuscript is published in one of the upcoming issues of the journal in print and online. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)

Editorial processes for manuscripts in the journal sections “Reflections” and “Interview” with editorial review

1. Corresponding authors may submit to the editorial team at any time book reviews, conference reports, transcribed interviews, or other short texts such as comments, provided that they fall within the journal’s thematic remit, comply with the journal’s publication ethics and adhere to category-specific author guidelines.
2. The editorial team reviews the manuscript, if necessary in cooperation with members of the editorial board, or scientific advisory board, and decides whether to accept the manuscript into the editorial process on the basis of its thematic fit and scientific quality.
3. The editorial team will notify the corresponding author within three weeks of receipt whether the manuscript has been accepted into the editorial process or not. The editorial team reserves the right to suggest and request alterations and improvements to the manuscript, in particular with regard to its scientific content, length and/or style.
4. If the manuscript meets the scientific quality and complies with the journal’s publication ethics as well as scientific and formal editorial standards, then the corresponding author is notified and the editorial copy editing and external layout processes begin. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)
5. The corresponding author receives the galley proofs, and gives print approval within one week.
6. The manuscript is published in one of the next issues of the journal in print and online. (Approximate timescale - four weeks.)

Complaints and appeals

Complaints and appeals against the journal, its editorial team, editorial board, scientific advisory board, "Special topic" editor(s), reviewers, publishing house, or authors are handled by the Editor in Chief as the journal’s ombudsperson. The ombudsperson shall be the first point of contact and is responsible for investigating the issue, mediating between parties and taking a final decision on the issue. In this process the ombudsperson may consult the expertise of other members of the editorial board, the scientific advisory board, the "Special topic" editors, or any other person the ombudsperson deems appropriate in order to resolve the conflict. The ombudsperson shall not be obliged to follow instructions. If the ombudsperson is accused of a conflict of interest, the editorial board shall appoint a substitute.

The editorial board, or the Editor in Chief , shall also handle conflicts of interest of authors, reviewers, the editorial team, "Special topic" editors, journal and publishing house, whether identified during the editorial process or after publication. The same process as described above will apply.

Complaints and appeals during the editorial processes

TATuP will consider appeals on decisions taken during the editorial processes listed above. The editorial team, together with the original reviewers and/or a third reviewer and/or members of the journal's editorial board, will consider any new data supplied by the author in support of their argument. The author will be notified of the outcome of their appeal along with an explanation of the decision.

Complaints and appeals after the editorial processes

Such cases include:

1. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published work, it is the author’s obligation to promptly notify the journal's editorial team or editorial board and cooperate with the editorial team to retract or correct the paper.
2. In the event of errors noted after publication, the corresponding author is obliged to provide corrections, which will be published as errata.
3. In the event of fundamental violations of the journal's publication ethics detected after publication of the manuscript, the corresponding author is obliged to consent to the retraction of the article.
4. In the event of errors detected only after publication of the manuscript and committed by the journal's editorial team, or the publishing house, the latter are willing to publish corrections, clarifications, retractions and apologies where needed.