Peer Review Policy
Peer Review Policy
Thoughts Review follows a rigorous, transparent, and ethical peer review process to ensure the quality, originality, academic integrity, and scholarly contribution of published research. The journal uses a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review system, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the evaluation process.
The peer review process ensures that manuscripts meet appropriate standards of originality, methodological rigor, academic relevance, clarity, and contribution to the relevant field. This policy aligns with the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the principles of transparency and best practice in scholarly publishing.
1. Editorial Screening
All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for external peer review. The Editorial Team evaluates submissions based on:
1. Relevance to the scope of the journal.
2. Originality and significance of the research.
3. Compliance with the journal's submission requirements.
4. Basic academic, ethical, and publication standards.
5. Plagiarism and research-integrity requirements.
6. Completeness of required documentation (e.g., ethical approvals, conflict-of-interest disclosures, data availability statements).
Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements may be returned to authors or rejected at the editorial screening stage without external review.
2. Double-Anonymous Peer Review
Thoughts Review follows a double-anonymous (double-blind) peer review process:
1) Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.
2) Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
3) Reviewer comments and recommendations are communicated through the editorial system.
4) Authors are required to remove identifying information from manuscripts where necessary.
5) The journal takes reasonable measures to maintain confidentiality and minimize potential bias and conflicts of interest.
The journal is committed to ensuring that the review process is free from bias based on authors' nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, or personal characteristics.
3. Number and Independence of Reviewers
Each manuscript that proceeds to external peer review is normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise.
Reviewers must be independent of the authors and should not have a personal, professional, institutional, or other conflict of interest that could compromise impartial evaluation.
In appropriate cases, the Editor may seek an additional review when reviewer recommendations substantially differ or when further expert assessment is required. The final decision on the number of reviewers rests with the responsible editor.
4. Reviewer Selection
Reviewers are selected based on:
I. Relevant academic and subject expertise.
II. Research experience and scholarly publications in the relevant field.
III. Academic qualifications and professional standing.
IV. Knowledge of the relevant research area.
V. Ability to provide objective, constructive, and timely evaluation.
VI. No conflicts of interest with the authors or the research.
The journal may select reviewers from national and international academic institutions. Reviewer selection is based on scholarly suitability and independence rather than nationality or institutional affiliation. The journal maintains a database of qualified reviewers and may also invite reviewers recommended by editorial board members or identified through scholarly networks.
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers evaluate manuscripts, as applicable, according to the following criteria:
A. Originality and contribution to existing knowledge.
B. Clarity of research objectives, questions, or arguments.
C. Adequacy and appropriateness of methodology or theoretical approach.
D. Accuracy and reliability of analysis.
E. Quality of evidence, interpretation, discussion, and conclusions.
F. Appropriate and relevant use of scholarly literature and references.
G. Clarity, organization, and academic presentation.
H. Ethical and research-integrity considerations.
I. Overall scholarly quality and relevance to the journal's scope.
Review criteria may vary according to the discipline and type of manuscript. Reviewers are provided with a structured review form to ensure consistency and comprehensiveness.
6. Reviewer Recommendations
Following evaluation, reviewers may recommend:
a) Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial changes.
b) Minor Revision – Limited revisions are required.
c) Major Revision – Significant revisions are required and the manuscript may be subject to further review.
d) Reject – The manuscript does not meet the journal's academic, ethical, or scholarly standards.
Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final publication decision is made independently by the Editor or authorized Editorial Board member after considering the reviewers' reports, the manuscript, and relevant editorial policies.
7. Revision and Re-Review
Authors are required to respond appropriately to reviewers' comments and submit a revised manuscript within the specified timeframe.
Authors should provide a clear, point-by-point response explaining how each substantive reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a reviewer recommendation is not followed, authors should provide an appropriate scholarly justification.
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by other qualified reviewers when further assessment is necessary. The Editor may also assess revisions directly if the changes are minor and do not require further expert evaluation.
8. Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics
Reviewers are expected to:
A. Maintain strict confidentiality regarding submitted manuscripts.
B. Provide objective, fair, respectful, and constructive evaluations.
C. Avoid personal criticism of authors.
D. Declare any actual or potential conflict of interest before accepting a review assignment.
E. Decline the review if they are unable to provide an impartial assessment.
F. Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe or notify the editor if an extension is required.
G. Identify relevant published work that may have been overlooked where appropriate.
H. Inform the editor of suspected plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabricated or manipulated data, or other ethical concerns.
I. Not use unpublished information from a manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage.
J. Not upload confidential manuscript content to external AI systems or unauthorized platforms.
9. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, correspondence, and editorial decisions are treated as confidential.
Reviewers must not disclose, copy, distribute, or use unpublished manuscript content without authorization from the journal.
The identities of reviewers remain confidential in accordance with the journal's double-anonymous peer review model. Editorial staff are also required to maintain confidentiality regarding all aspects of the review process.
10. Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Independence
Reviewers, editors, and other individuals involved in the evaluation process must disclose any actual or potential conflict of interest.
Editors will not normally handle manuscripts where they have a conflict of interest, including manuscripts involving close personal or professional relationships or other circumstances that could affect impartiality. In such cases, responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to an appropriately independent editor.
Editorial decisions are based on the manuscript's academic quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and scholarly contribution, and are not influenced by the author's nationality, institutional affiliation, gender, religion, or personal characteristics. Editorial decisions are independent of the publisher's commercial interests.
11. Editorial Decisions
The Editor or authorized Editorial Board member considers the reviewers' reports and makes the final editorial decision. The journal may:
i. Accept the manuscript.
ii. Request minor or major revisions.
iii. Seek additional expert review.
iv. Reject the manuscript.
Receiving favorable reviewer reports does not automatically guarantee acceptance, as the final decision remains an editorial responsibility. The Editor's decision is final, subject to the appeals process outlined below.
12. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision when they believe that a significant procedural error, misunderstanding, or substantive issue affected the decision.
Appeals must provide a clear and reasoned explanation and should address specific concerns rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome. Appeals must be submitted in writing to the editorial office within a reasonable timeframe (normally 30 days) after the decision.
Appeals are considered by the Editor or an appropriate independent editorial authority. The journal may seek additional expert advice where necessary. An appeal does not guarantee a reversal of the original decision.
Complaints concerning the peer review process or editorial conduct are handled in accordance with the journal's Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement and complaints procedures.
13. Review Timeline
Thoughts Review aims to conduct peer review efficiently while maintaining academic quality and reviewer independence.
The duration of peer review may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, disciplinary requirements, and the number of revisions required. The journal normally aims to complete the first round of review within 4–6 weeks, but this is indicative and may vary.
Any stated review timelines are indicative and do not constitute a guarantee of acceptance or publication within a specific period.
14. Special and Editorially Reviewed Content
Not all published content necessarily undergoes the same external peer review process. Editorials, letters, book reviews, announcements, and other non-research content may be subject to editorial assessment rather than full external peer review.
The review status of research articles is clearly distinguished from non-peer-reviewed content where applicable. The journal website clearly indicates which content types are peer-reviewed.
15. Research Integrity
Thoughts Review is committed to maintaining high standards of research and publication integrity and follows internationally recognized publication ethics principles, including relevant COPE guidance.
Concerns involving plagiarism, duplicate publication, fabrication, falsification, unethical research practices, citation manipulation, authorship misconduct, or other forms of publication misconduct may result in investigation and appropriate editorial action, including rejection, correction, retraction, or other measures where warranted.
16. Post-Publication Review and Corrections
Peer review does not end the journal's responsibility for the integrity of the published record.
Where credible concerns arise after publication, the journal may investigate the matter and, where appropriate, publish a correction, expression of concern, or retraction in accordance with its Corrections and Retractions Policy and recognized publication-ethics principles.
17. Commitment to Fair and Ethical Peer Review
Thoughts Review is committed to maintaining a fair, impartial, confidential, and academically rigorous peer review system. The journal continuously reviews its peer review procedures to improve transparency, quality, reviewer integrity, and scholarly standards.
The journal maintains records of the peer review process for each published article in accordance with standard editorial practice. These records may be made available to indexing databases, auditors, or relevant authorities upon reasonable request.
Contact
Questions or concerns regarding the peer review process should be directed to the Thoughts Review editorial office using the official contact details published on the journal website.
