Peer Review Process

Papers submitted to TEPIAN are subject to rigorous peer review so as to ensure that the research published is 'good science'.

Manuscripts are sent out for review electronically, and all correspondence takes place via e-mail. Although the peer review process is accelerated by the use of electronic communication, traditional, high-quality peer-review standards are applied to all manuscripts submitted to the journal.

TEPIAN has a 'single-blind' review process: Authors are not told who reviewed their paper. The peer referees’ identity remains unknown to the authors throughout the review process.

Peer reviewers are asked to give their opinion on a number of issues pertinent to the scientific and formal aspects of a paper, and to judge the papers on grounds of originality and urgency. All relevant information will be forwarded to the author(s).

Peer reviewers will have six possible options, for each article:

1. Accept Submission (i.e. no need for any revision)
2. Revisions Required (i.e. accepted if the author makes the requested revisions)
3. Resubmit for Review (i.e. accepted or rejected after revisions have been made - paper will be sent out for another peer review round)
4. Resubmit elsewhere (i.e. if the manuscript is better suited for another journal)
5. Decline Submission (i.e. if the manuscript is substandard)
6. See Comments (i.e. if the reviewer cannot choose from any of the above)

In addition, papers may be rejected directly by the Chief Editor if judged to be out of scope or if scientifically or formally sub-standard.

When asking for revisions, reviewers have two possible goals: to ask authors to tighten their arguments based on existing data or to identify areas where more data are needed. Even formal revision may be required if the language or style is sub-standard. To facilitate rapid publication, authors are given a maximum of 1 months for revision. After 1 months, revised manuscripts will be considered new submissions.