Peer Review

Reviewers are kindly asked to consult the guidelines for reviewers and to submit their review to the editorial team by using the peer review form. Authors find information in these documents about the criteria according to which their manuscript will be evaluated. The following is a brief summary of the main points to be considered:

TATuP’s peer review process is non-blind and not public: the persons involved in the peer-review process (authors, reviewers, editorial team, "Special Topic" editors, as well as, in the case of conflicting reviews, members of the editorial board or scientific advisory board) know each other by name and interact with equal rights in a fair and constructive way.

The central aim of the peer review process is quality assurance. The reviewers’ comments support the editorial team, "Special Topic" editors, and editorial board of the journal in their assessment of manuscripts and include suggestions for their improvement. This also includes the reasoned rejection of manuscripts.

Reviewers are qualified by unbiased and proven scientific expertise in the field of the manuscript under review. This means:

  • Peer reviewers should not consider evaluating manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any one of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the manuscripts.
  • All judgements and findings in the peer review process should be objective.
  • Reviewers should sustain their critique by pointing to relevant published work which is not yet cited.
  • Reviewers must treat all information from manuscripts under review confidentially before publication, or in the event that the manuscript is rejected.

Reviews and possible replies from the authors are not published.

In both of the peer-reviewed journal sections ("Special Topic" and "Research"), manuscripts are reviewed by two external reviewers who are not members of the editorial board, scientific advisory board, or editorial team. In the case of conflicting peer reviews ("acceptance without revisions" and "rejection") a third review is issued; for manuscripts submitted to the journal section "Special Topic", the third review is issued by one of the "Special Topic" editors; for manuscripts submitted to the journal section "Research", the third review is usually issued by one of the members of the editorial board or scientific advisory board. Manuscripts submitted to the journal section “Reflections” are reviewed by the academic editors, if necessary in cooperation with members of the editorial board, or scientific advisory board.