Peer Review & Publication Policy

Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Transactions in Systems Engineering (JTSE) applies a double-blind peer-review process to ensure the quality, originality, scientific rigor, and relevance of published manuscripts. Under this process, the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other throughout the review process.

Peer review is a fundamental component of the journal's commitment to academic integrity, editorial independence, and the publication of high-quality scholarly research. All research articles submitted to JTSE are subject to editorial assessment and, if considered suitable, external peer review in accordance with the procedures described below.

Initial Editorial Assessment

Upon receipt, each manuscript is assessed by the editor to determine whether it falls within the journal's aims and scope and meets the minimum requirements for scholarly quality, originality, methodological soundness, ethical compliance, and academic presentation.

Manuscripts may be rejected without external review if they fall outside the journal's scope, lack sufficient originality or scholarly contribution, contain serious methodological or scientific deficiencies, fail to meet applicable ethical requirements, or do not satisfy the journal's basic submission standards.

Manuscripts that pass the initial assessment proceed to external peer review. Authors are normally notified of an initial editorial rejection within one week of submission.

Reviewer Selection and Assignment

Each manuscript that passes the initial editorial assessment is evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant subject area.

Since 2024, authors submitting manuscripts to TULTECH journals have been required to suggest two potential reviewers. Suggested reviewers should:

  • Hold a doctoral degree (PhD or equivalent).

  • Possess demonstrable expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.

  • Be affiliated with institutions different from those of the manuscript's authors.

  • Have no actual or potential conflicts of interest that could compromise the impartiality of the review.

The editor independently evaluates the suitability and independence of suggested reviewers and retains full responsibility for selecting and assigning reviewers. The editor is not obliged to appoint author-suggested reviewers and may identify alternative experts as necessary.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality, provide objective and constructive assessments, and disclose any conflicts of interest before undertaking a review.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:

  • Originality and contribution: The novelty, significance, and contribution of the manuscript to the relevant field.

  • Scientific and methodological rigor: The appropriateness of the research design, methods, analytical procedures, and interpretation of evidence.

  • Results and conclusions: The clarity and reliability of the results and the extent to which the conclusions are supported by the findings.

  • Engagement with the literature: The relevance, accuracy, and adequacy of citations and references to previous research.

  • Ethical compliance: Adherence to applicable research ethics standards, including appropriate declarations and approvals where required.

  • Clarity and organization: The logical structure, clarity of presentation, and suitability of the manuscript for the journal's readership.

Reviewers provide a written report identifying the manuscript's strengths, weaknesses, and any revisions necessary to meet the journal's publication standards. Reviewers are not responsible for copyediting or correcting the language of manuscripts, although they may identify language or presentation problems that affect clarity.

Review Outcomes and Manuscript Revisions

Following external review, the editor considers the reviewers' reports and determines the appropriate editorial action. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept: The manuscript meets the journal's requirements and requires no substantive further revision.

  • Minor revision: Limited changes are required before a final decision can be made.

  • Major revision: Substantial changes are required, and the revised manuscript must be reassessed.

  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal's publication standards or has deficiencies that cannot be adequately addressed through revision.

Authors receiving a revision decision are expected to submit a revised manuscript and a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Where a comment has not been followed, the authors should provide a reasoned explanation.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment. Additional review rounds may be required when substantive concerns remain unresolved. The number of rounds depends on the nature of the required revisions and the quality of the authors' responses.

Review Timeline

The initial external review normally takes between one and six weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the time required to obtain independent assessments.

Revised manuscripts are normally reassessed within one to six weeks, although the actual duration may vary. If reviewer reports conflict substantially or a review is significantly delayed, the editor may invite an additional reviewer or take other appropriate steps to ensure a fair and timely decision.

These timeframes are indicative and do not constitute a guarantee of a decision within a specified period.

Conflicts of Interest and Confidentiality

Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could affect their impartiality. The editor assesses disclosed conflicts and determines whether an alternative reviewer is required.

Editors must also avoid participating in decisions where personal, professional, institutional, or financial interests could compromise editorial independence. Manuscripts are handled confidentially, and their contents must not be disclosed or used for purposes unrelated to the review process.

All participants in the review process are expected to uphold the principles of fairness, confidentiality, impartiality, and academic integrity.

Final Editorial Decision

Reviewers provide expert recommendations, but the final decision rests with the editor. In reaching a decision, the editor considers the reviewers' assessments, the authors' responses to reviewer comments, the quality of any revised manuscript, and the manuscript's overall suitability for the journal.

The editor may accept the manuscript, request further revisions, or reject it. Where necessary, the editor may seek an additional expert opinion before reaching a decision.

The corresponding author is notified of the decision and receives the relevant reviewer comments and editorial recommendations, subject to confidentiality requirements. Acceptance is granted only when the editor is satisfied that the manuscript meets the journal's scholarly and publication standards.

Becoming a Reviewer 

Researchers interested in reviewing for the Journal of Transactions in Systems Engineering may contact the editorial office at jtse.tultech@gmail.com or submit a reviewer-interest request through the journal's available reviewer-registration channels.

Prospective reviewers should have relevant academic qualifications and expertise in the fields covered by the journal. Reviewer appointments are subject to editorial assessment of the candidate's qualifications, expertise, and suitability.

JTSE values the contribution of reviewers to maintaining scholarly standards and may acknowledge their contributions through appropriate annual recognition, subject to journal policy and reviewer consent where applicable.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism is the use of another person's published or unpublished ideas, words, data, figures, or other intellectual property without proper permission, or attribution, and presenting them as original work. The Journal of Transactions in Systems Engineering (JTSE) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of publication ethics and academic integrity. 

All submitted manuscripts are screened using plagiarism-detection software, including iThenticate/Turnitin, as part of the initial editorial assessment and throughout the review process when necessary. Prior to any editorial decision, the Editorial Board carefully evaluates the plagiarism screening report alongside reviewers’ comments to ensure the originality and integrity of the submitted work. The Editorial Board meets regularly to discuss manuscripts and make informed decisions based on the peer-review reports and plagiarism analysis.

JTSE has a zero-tolerance policy toward plagiarism in any form. Manuscripts found to contain significant plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, or other forms of academic misconduct will be rejected immediately. If such issues are discovered after publication, appropriate corrective actions, including article retraction, may be taken in accordance with established publication ethics guidelines.

At JTSE, we strongly discourage and are against the Plagiarism Act. Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of an author using portions of their previous writings on the same topic in another of their publications without specifically citing them formally in quotes. 

Citations 

The journal complies with I4OC standards for open citations. https://i4oc.org/