Technical Report Press follows a structured editorial workflow to ensure that manuscripts submitted to its journals are handled fairly, transparently, confidentially, and according to accepted standards of scholarly publishing. The workflow is designed to support academic quality, ethical integrity, editorial independence, and timely communication with authors, reviewers, and editors.
Journals published by Technical Report Press use a single-blind peer review process. In this model, reviewers know the identity of the authors, but the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.
1. Manuscript Submission
Authors submit their manuscripts to the relevant journal published by Technical Report Press according to the journal’s submission instructions. Manuscripts may usually be submitted in Microsoft Word or LaTeX format, together with required supporting files such as figures, tables, supplementary material, cover letter, ethical statements, funding information, conflict of interest declaration, and data availability statement where applicable.
The corresponding author is responsible for ensuring that all authors have approved the submission and that the manuscript is not under consideration by another journal.
2. Administrative Check
After submission, the editorial office conducts an administrative check to confirm that the manuscript file and required information have been provided. This check may include verification of the manuscript title, author details, affiliations, corresponding author information, abstract, keywords, references, figures, tables, declarations, and supplementary files.
If essential information is missing, the manuscript may be returned to the corresponding author for completion before editorial evaluation begins.
3. Initial Editorial Screening
The manuscript is then reviewed by the editor or editorial office to determine whether it is suitable for further consideration. At this stage, the manuscript is assessed for relevance to the journal’s aims and scope, overall academic quality, originality, readability, ethical compliance, and basic manuscript preparation.
Manuscripts may be declined without external peer review if they are outside the scope of the journal, lack sufficient scholarly content, contain serious ethical concerns, are incomplete, or do not meet the minimum standards required for peer review.
4. Similarity and Ethics Assessment
Technical Report Press may screen manuscripts for plagiarism, excessive similarity, duplicate publication, inappropriate text reuse, citation concerns, image manipulation, authorship issues, conflicts of interest, or other ethical matters.
If ethical concerns are identified, the editorial office may request clarification from the authors, ask for additional documents, return the manuscript for correction, reject the manuscript, or take other appropriate editorial action according to the press’s publication ethics policy.
5. Assignment to Handling Editor
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a handling editor, section editor, associate editor, or editor-in-chief, depending on the journal’s editorial structure. The handling editor is responsible for overseeing the peer review process, selecting reviewers, evaluating reviewer reports, communicating recommendations, and making or advising on editorial decisions.
Editors must declare any conflict of interest. If a conflict exists, the manuscript should be reassigned to another qualified editor.
6. Reviewer Selection
The handling editor identifies suitable reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, research experience, subject knowledge, independence, and absence of conflicts of interest.
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, confidential, and constructive evaluations. They must not use unpublished manuscript content for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.
7. Single-Blind Peer Review
Technical Report Press journals use a single-blind peer review process. Reviewers are informed of the authors’ identities, but reviewer identities remain confidential and are not shared with authors.
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript according to scholarly quality, originality, relevance, research design, methodology, evidence, clarity, ethical compliance, contribution to the field, and suitability for publication in the journal.
Reviewer comments are submitted to the editor and may include confidential comments for the editor as well as comments intended for the authors.
8. Reviewer Reports
Reviewers are normally asked to comment on the following:
- Relevance to the journal’s aims and scope
- Originality and contribution to knowledge
- Quality of the research question or objective
- Strength of the literature review and scholarly context
- Suitability of the methodology or analytical approach
- Reliability of results, findings, or arguments
- Clarity of discussion and conclusions
- Quality of figures, tables, data, and supplementary material
- Accuracy and completeness of references
- Ethical compliance and transparency
- Overall suitability for publication
Reviewers may recommend acceptance, minor revision, major revision, revise and resubmit, or rejection. Reviewer recommendations are advisory; the final decision rests with the editor.
9. Editorial Decision
After receiving reviewer reports, the handling editor evaluates the manuscript, reviewer comments, and the journal’s editorial standards. The editor may issue one of the following decisions:
Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without further substantive changes.
Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited corrections, clarifications, or improvements before acceptance.
Major Revision: The manuscript requires substantial changes before it can be reconsidered.
Revise and Resubmit: The manuscript has potential but requires extensive revision and may undergo a new or additional round of review.
Reject: The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
The decision letter is sent to the corresponding author with editorial comments and reviewer feedback where applicable.
10. Revision by Authors
If revision is requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript and a detailed response letter. The response letter should address each editor and reviewer comment clearly and explain what changes were made.
Authors should identify changes in the revised manuscript using tracked changes, highlighting, or another method requested by the journal. If authors disagree with a reviewer comment, they should provide a respectful and evidence-based explanation.
11. Evaluation of Revised Manuscript
The revised manuscript is assessed by the editor. Depending on the extent of revision, the editor may make a decision directly or send the manuscript back to the original reviewers or new reviewers for further evaluation.
The editor checks whether the authors have adequately addressed the comments and whether the manuscript now meets the journal’s standards for publication.
12. Final Acceptance
A manuscript is accepted only after it has successfully completed editorial assessment, peer review, required revisions, and final editorial approval. Acceptance confirms that the manuscript is approved for publication, subject to production processing.
Acceptance is based on academic quality, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, reviewer evaluation, and editorial judgment. Publication decisions are not influenced by payment, personal relationships, institutional background, nationality, or commercial interest.
13. Copyediting and Language Corrections
After acceptance, the manuscript enters the production stage. Technical Report Press may provide copyediting and minor English language corrections free of charge. This may include grammar corrections, spelling, punctuation, consistency, formatting, reference style, figure captions, table titles, and general readability improvements.
If major English language revision, extensive rewriting, translation, or deep language editing is required, authors may be advised to obtain professional language editing from a qualified language editing service or academic editing institute. Language editing does not guarantee acceptance or publication.
14. Formatting and Production
Accepted manuscripts are prepared for publication according to the style of the relevant journal. Production work may include formatting, layout preparation, reference checking, figure and table placement, metadata preparation, DOI processing, license information, and preparation of the final article file.
Authors may be asked to provide high-resolution figures, editable tables, missing references, source files, or corrected metadata during this stage.
15. Proof Review
Before publication, authors may receive proofs for final review. Authors should check the proofs carefully for typographical errors, formatting problems, author names, affiliations, figures, tables, references, DOI information, and other publication details.
Proof corrections should be limited to minor errors. Major rewriting, new results, new analysis, major reference changes, or authorship changes are not normally permitted at the proof stage.
16. DOI Assignment and Online Publication
Where applicable, each published article receives a Digital Object Identifier. The DOI supports permanent identification, citation, indexing, metadata registration, and long-term access.
After final approval, the article is published online on the relevant journal website or publishing platform. The published record may include the article title, author names, affiliations, abstract, keywords, article history, DOI, citation information, references, license statement, figures, tables, and supplementary material.
17. Indexing and Archiving
After publication, article metadata may be prepared or shared for indexing, abstracting, discovery, archiving, and preservation services, depending on the indexing status and policies of the relevant journal.
Technical Report Press supports accurate metadata, stable article links, DOI records, searchable archives, and long-term access to published scholarly content.
18. Post-Publication Updates
Technical Report Press is committed to preserving the integrity of the scholarly record. If errors or ethical concerns are identified after publication, the journal may publish a correction, clarification, expression of concern, or retraction, depending on the nature and seriousness of the issue.
Authors, readers, reviewers, editors, and institutions may contact the relevant journal office or Technical Report Press regarding post-publication concerns.
19. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, author responses, and unpublished materials are treated as confidential. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and production staff must not disclose manuscript information except as required for editorial handling, peer review, production, ethics investigation, indexing, or legal compliance.
Reviewer identities remain confidential under the single-blind peer review process.
20. Editorial Independence
Technical Report Press respects the editorial independence of its journals. Editorial decisions are made by editors based on scholarly merit, journal scope, peer-review reports, ethical standards, and academic contribution.
The publisher supports the editorial workflow but does not interfere with independent editorial decisions. The press does not permit acceptance in exchange for payment, guaranteed publication, unfair accelerated review, or favorable editorial treatment.
21. Workflow Summary
The standard editorial workflow is as follows:
Submission → Administrative Check → Initial Editorial Screening → Similarity and Ethics Assessment → Editor Assignment → Reviewer Selection → Single-Blind Peer Review → Editorial Decision → Author Revision → Revised Manuscript Evaluation → Final Acceptance → Copyediting and Production → Proof Review → DOI Assignment → Online Publication → Indexing and Archiving → Post-Publication Record Maintenance.