Search TRP

Editorial Process

Technical Report Press (TRP) is committed to maintaining a transparent, rigorous, and ethically responsible editorial process across all TRP journals. The editorial process is designed to ensure scholarly quality, methodological soundness, editorial independence, publication ethics, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

All manuscripts submitted to TRP journals are assessed through a structured editorial workflow that includes initial screening, academic editorial assessment, single-blind peer review, revision, final decision, production, proofing, and publication.

1. Submission of Manuscript

Authors submit manuscripts through Scholar Manuscript or the relevant online submission system specified by the journal. The submitting author, normally the corresponding author, is responsible for ensuring that all required files, declarations, statements, and metadata are provided at the time of submission.

A complete submission should normally include:

  • the main manuscript file;
  • title, abstract, keywords, author names, affiliations, and corresponding author details;
  • figures, tables, and supplementary materials, where applicable;
  • funding statement;
  • conflict of interest statement;
  • author contribution statement;
  • data availability statement, where applicable;
  • ethics approval and informed consent statements, where applicable;
  • cover letter;
  • references and supporting documentation.

Submission of a manuscript confirms that the work is original, has not been published previously, and is not under consideration elsewhere, except where explicitly permitted by the journal policy, such as disclosed preprints or substantially expanded conference papers.

2. Initial Editorial Screening

After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening, also known as a pre-check. This stage is intended to determine whether the manuscript is complete, technically suitable, and broadly aligned with the journal’s requirements.

The initial screening may include checks for:

  • completeness of submission files;
  • journal scope and subject relevance;
  • manuscript structure and readability;
  • compliance with author guidelines;
  • required ethical declarations;
  • authorship and affiliation information;
  • funding and conflict of interest statements;
  • data availability and supplementary files;
  • possible plagiarism, duplication, or overlap with previously published work;
  • image, figure, or data integrity concerns, where applicable.

Manuscripts that are incomplete, clearly outside the journal’s scope, insufficiently prepared, or not compliant with essential ethical or editorial requirements may be returned to authors for correction before review or rejected at the editorial screening stage.

3. Assignment to an Academic Editor

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to an appropriate academic editor. Depending on the journal structure, this may be the Editor-in-Chief, an Associate Editor, a Section Editor, an Editorial Board Member, or a Guest Editor for a special issue.

The assigned editor evaluates the manuscript for:

  • relevance to the journal’s aims and scope;
  • originality and scholarly contribution;
  • methodological or theoretical soundness;
  • clarity of presentation;
  • ethical compliance;
  • suitability for external peer review.

At this stage, the editor may decide to send the manuscript for peer review, request preliminary changes before review, or reject the manuscript without external review if it is unsuitable for the journal.

4. Editorial Rejection Before Peer Review

A manuscript may be rejected before peer review if it:

  • falls outside the journal’s aims and scope;
  • lacks sufficient originality or scholarly contribution;
  • contains serious methodological or conceptual weaknesses;
  • does not meet minimum standards of academic presentation;
  • lacks essential ethical approval or required declarations;
  • shows evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or publication misconduct;
  • is incomplete or unsuitable for meaningful peer review.

Editorial rejection before peer review is intended to ensure efficient handling and to avoid unnecessary delays for authors and reviewers.

5. Single-Blind Peer Review

TRP journals follow a single-blind peer-review process. In this model, reviewers know the identities of the authors, but authors do not know the identities of the reviewers.

The single-blind model allows reviewers to assess the manuscript with awareness of author expertise, institutional context, prior related work, and possible conflicts or overlaps, while protecting reviewer anonymity and encouraging candid scholarly evaluation.

Reviewer identities are treated as confidential and are not disclosed to authors unless a journal has a specific policy allowing signed review and the reviewer explicitly agrees to disclose their identity.

6. Selection of Reviewers

The academic editor, with support from the editorial office where needed, selects reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area, methodology, or technical content of the manuscript.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • relevant scholarly or professional expertise;
  • independence from the authors;
  • absence of conflicts of interest;
  • ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment;
  • reliability and timeliness;
  • prior reviewing experience, where applicable.

TRP normally aims to obtain at least two independent review reports for standard research manuscripts. Additional reviewers may be invited where the manuscript is interdisciplinary, technically complex, controversial, or where reviewer reports differ substantially.

7. Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide an objective, constructive, confidential, and evidence-based assessment of the manuscript. They should evaluate the quality, originality, validity, clarity, and relevance of the work.

Reviewers are asked to comment on:

  • originality and contribution to the field;
  • clarity of aims, research questions, or hypotheses;
  • appropriateness of methodology;
  • adequacy of data, analysis, and interpretation;
  • validity of results and conclusions;
  • quality of figures, tables, and supplementary materials;
  • adequacy of references and engagement with relevant literature;
  • ethical compliance, where applicable;
  • data availability, transparency, and reproducibility;
  • limitations and possible overstatement of findings.

Reviewers must treat all manuscript materials as confidential. They must not share, copy, distribute, cite, or use unpublished material from the manuscript for personal, professional, or research advantage.

8. Conflicts of Interest in Peer Review

Reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest before accepting a review invitation. A reviewer should decline the invitation or contact the editor if impartiality could be affected.

Conflicts of interest may include:

  • recent collaboration or co-authorship with any author;
  • current or recent institutional affiliation with an author;
  • close personal or professional relationship;
  • direct academic competition;
  • financial interest in the outcome;
  • involvement in the research or manuscript;
  • strong personal disagreement or bias.

If a conflict is identified after a review has begun, the reviewer must inform the editorial office immediately. The editor will determine whether the reviewer should continue or be replaced.

9. Reviewer Reports and Recommendations

Reviewers submit their reports through Scholar Manuscript or the relevant submission system. A reviewer report normally includes comments for the authors, confidential comments for the editor, and an editorial recommendation.

Possible reviewer recommendations may include:

  • accept;
  • minor revision;
  • major revision;
  • reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final decision rests with the responsible academic editor, who evaluates the reviewer reports, the manuscript content, journal standards, and editorial policy.

10. Editorial Assessment of Reviews

The assigned editor evaluates the reviewer reports for quality, relevance, fairness, and consistency. Editors are not required to follow reviewer recommendations automatically. Instead, they make an independent editorial judgment based on the manuscript and the substance of the review comments.

Where reviewer reports are contradictory, incomplete, biased, or insufficiently detailed, the editor may:

  • invite an additional reviewer;
  • request clarification from a reviewer;
  • assess the manuscript independently;
  • consult another editor or editorial board member;
  • make a decision based on the available evidence.

11. Editorial Decision

After considering the manuscript and reviewer reports, the editor issues one of the following decisions:

Accept

The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive revision. Minor production or formatting changes may still be required.

Minor Revision

The manuscript is potentially publishable after limited changes. These may include clarification, small corrections, minor methodological explanation, reference updates, or improvements to figures, tables, or language.

Major Revision

The manuscript may be reconsidered after substantial revision. Major revision may be required when there are important concerns about methods, analysis, interpretation, structure, completeness, literature engagement, or presentation.

Reject

The manuscript is not suitable for publication in its current form and is unlikely to become acceptable through revision, or it falls outside the journal’s scope, lacks sufficient contribution, or has serious methodological, ethical, or integrity concerns.

Decision letters should provide clear, respectful, and actionable guidance to authors. Where revision is invited, the decision letter should identify the main issues that must be addressed.

12. Revision by Authors

When revision is invited, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments.

The response should:

  • address each comment separately;
  • explain what changes were made;
  • indicate where changes appear in the revised manuscript;
  • justify any reviewer recommendation that was not followed;
  • maintain a professional and respectful tone.

Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers, assessed by new reviewers, or evaluated directly by the editor, depending on the extent of revision and the nature of the concerns raised.

Failure to submit a revised manuscript within the requested timeframe may result in administrative withdrawal of the submission unless an extension has been granted.

13. Further Review and Additional Revision

A revised manuscript may require further rounds of review if significant concerns remain. TRP encourages efficient editorial handling and aims to avoid unnecessary revision cycles.

If authors do not adequately address essential methodological, ethical, or scholarly concerns after one or more revision rounds, the editor may reject the manuscript.

14. Final Acceptance

A manuscript may be accepted only when the responsible academic editor is satisfied that:

  • the manuscript fits the journal’s aims and scope;
  • the work is original and contributes to the field;
  • the methodology and analysis are appropriate;
  • the conclusions are supported by the evidence;
  • ethical and transparency requirements have been met;
  • reviewer and editor concerns have been adequately addressed;
  • the manuscript is suitable for publication as part of the scholarly record.

Acceptance is communicated formally through the submission system or by the editorial office.

15. Production Process

After acceptance, the manuscript moves to production. The production process may include:

  • copyediting;
  • formatting and typesetting;
  • reference checking;
  • figure and table quality checks;
  • metadata preparation;
  • DOI preparation, where applicable;
  • preparation of PDF and web-ready versions;
  • proof generation.

During production, authors may be contacted to resolve formatting issues, missing information, figure quality problems, reference inconsistencies, or final metadata questions.

16. Author Proofs

Before publication, corresponding authors normally receive proofs for review. Authors are responsible for checking proofs carefully and returning corrections within the requested timeframe.

Proof corrections should normally be limited to:

  • typographical errors;
  • formatting errors;
  • author name or affiliation errors;
  • minor factual corrections;
  • production-related issues.

Substantive changes after acceptance, including major rewriting, new results, authorship changes, or changes affecting interpretation, require editorial approval and may delay publication.

17. Publication

After proofs are finalized, the article is published online on the journal website. Published articles are made openly available under the journal’s open access and licensing policy.

Publication may include:

  • online article page;
  • PDF version;
  • article metadata;
  • DOI and persistent identifiers, where applicable;
  • supplementary files, where applicable;
  • dissemination to indexing, abstracting, archiving, and discovery services, where applicable.

TRP aims to preserve published articles as part of the permanent scholarly record.

18. Post-Publication Corrections and Updates

If an error is identified after publication, TRP may issue an appropriate post-publication notice depending on the nature and severity of the issue.

Possible notices include:

  • correction;
  • erratum;
  • corrigendum;
  • expression of concern;
  • retraction;
  • removal or replacement of content in exceptional legal or ethical circumstances.

Corrections are generally used for errors that do not invalidate the main findings. Retractions may be issued where findings are unreliable because of major error, misconduct, plagiarism, duplicate publication, compromised peer review, unethical research, or other serious concerns.

19. Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe there has been a procedural error, misunderstanding, conflict of interest, or significant misinterpretation of the manuscript.

Appeals must be submitted in writing and should include:

  • the manuscript title and identification details;
  • the decision being appealed;
  • a clear explanation of the grounds for appeal;
  • specific evidence supporting the appeal;
  • a response to the main reasons for rejection.

Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief, an independent editor, or editorial leadership, as appropriate. Additional expert advice may be sought where necessary. Submission of an appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision.

20. Complaints and Ethical Concerns

Complaints about editorial process, peer review, publication ethics, authorship, conflicts of interest, or published content are handled in accordance with TRP’s publication ethics policies.

Where appropriate, the editorial office may:

  • request clarification from authors, reviewers, or editors;
  • consult the Editor-in-Chief or editorial board;
  • seek independent expert advice;
  • contact institutions, funders, or other journals;
  • issue corrections, expressions of concern, or retractions;
  • take other appropriate editorial action.

All complaints and ethical concerns are handled as fairly, confidentially, and transparently as possible.

21. Editorial Independence

TRP maintains editorial independence across all journals. Editorial decisions are made by academic editors and are based on scholarly merit, methodological soundness, originality, journal scope, ethical compliance, and reviewer input.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • commercial considerations;
  • institutional pressure;
  • personal relationships;
  • nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, political views, disability, or other personal characteristics;
  • author status or seniority;
  • funding source;
  • publisher interests.

Editors with a conflict of interest must recuse themselves from handling the manuscript. Such submissions are assigned to an independent editor.

22. Confidentiality

All manuscripts and editorial materials are confidential until publication. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and any approved participants in the review process must not disclose manuscript content, reviewer identities, editorial discussions, or decision information except as required for the editorial process.

Confidentiality also applies to:

  • reviewer reports;
  • editorial correspondence;
  • author responses;
  • unpublished data and figures;
  • supplementary materials;
  • ethical or misconduct investigations.

23. Use of AI and Automated Tools in Editorial Workflow

TRP does not permit editors or reviewers to upload unpublished manuscripts, data, figures, tables, supplementary files, reviewer reports, or confidential editorial correspondence into public or third-party generative AI tools.

Automated tools may be used to support editorial administration, similarity screening, language checks, metadata preparation, or technical quality checks, provided that confidentiality, data protection, copyright, and editorial responsibility are preserved.

Final editorial decisions are made by human academic editors and are not made solely through automated processing.

24. Research Integrity

TRP is committed to protecting the integrity of the scholarly record. Manuscripts may be investigated or rejected if concerns arise regarding:

  • plagiarism;
  • duplicate publication;
  • data fabrication;
  • data falsification;
  • inappropriate image manipulation;
  • authorship misconduct;
  • undisclosed conflicts of interest;
  • citation manipulation;
  • peer-review manipulation;
  • unethical research practices;
  • failure to provide required ethical approvals or consent.

Post-publication concerns may lead to correction, expression of concern, retraction, or other appropriate notice.

25. Summary of Editorial Workflow

The TRP editorial process normally follows this sequence:

  • manuscript submission;
  • initial editorial office screening;
  • assignment to an academic editor;
  • editorial assessment;
  • single-blind external peer review;
  • reviewer reports and recommendations;
  • editor decision;
  • author revision and response, where required;
  • further review or editorial assessment;
  • final decision;
  • acceptance;
  • production and proofing;
  • online publication;
  • post-publication correction or update, where necessary.

Through this process, TRP aims to ensure that all published articles meet appropriate standards of scholarly quality, editorial independence, ethical responsibility, and long-term reliability.