Search TRP

Guide for Editors

1. Purpose of this Guide

This guide explains the editorial responsibilities, decision-making standards, and workflow expectations for journals published by Technical Report Press (TRP). It is intended for Editors-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Editorial Board Members, Advisory Board Members, Statistical Editors, and Guest Editors.

The purpose of this guide is to support consistent editorial practice, transparent decision-making, efficient manuscript handling, fair peer review, and strong research integrity across all TRP journals.

2. About Technical Report Press

Technical Report Press (TRP) is a diamond open access publisher based in Poland. TRP supports reliable scholarly communication by providing accessible publishing infrastructure while maintaining editorial independence, publication ethics, and the integrity of the scholarly record.

TRP journals are led by academic editors and editorial boards. The TRP editorial office provides administrative, technical, and production support, but scholarly decisions remain the responsibility of the appointed academic editors.

3. Diamond Open Access at TRP

TRP journals publish content under a diamond open access model. This means that published articles are openly accessible to readers without subscription charges, paywalls, or registration barriers, and authors are able to publish accepted manuscripts without article processing charges.

Under this model:

  • articles are made openly accessible immediately upon publication;
  • authors generally publish under Creative Commons licensing, commonly the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, unless a journal states otherwise;
  • TRP does not charge submission fees or article processing charges for standard publication;
  • TRP’s publishing operations are supported through publisher resources, institutional support, and partnerships;
  • funding or operational support does not influence editorial decisions, peer-review outcomes, or journal editorial direction.

4. TRP Editorial Office Support

The TRP editorial office provides operational support so that academic editors can focus on scholarly assessment and editorial decision-making. Depending on the journal, editorial office support may include:

  • initial checks for completeness, scope alignment, and policy compliance;
  • communication with authors during submission, review, revision, and production;
  • reviewer invitations, reminders, and follow-up correspondence;
  • coordination of revisions and editorial decision workflows;
  • administrative support for appeals, complaints, and ethical concerns;
  • post-acceptance production, including copyediting, formatting, typesetting, metadata preparation, proof handling, and online publication;
  • dissemination support through article metadata preparation and indexing or discovery workflows where applicable.

Editors and reviewers normally communicate with TRP through email and/or the journal’s manuscript submission system.

5. Editorial Workflow and Peer Review

5.1 Submission and Initial Assessment

After submission, the editorial office conducts an initial screening, also referred to as a pre-check. This stage is intended to determine whether the manuscript is complete and suitable for editorial consideration.

The pre-check may include assessment of:

  • alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
  • completeness of manuscript files and required declarations;
  • basic formatting and presentation;
  • ethical statements, approvals, and informed consent documentation where relevant;
  • originality concerns, including possible plagiarism or duplicate submission;
  • minimum scholarly, scientific, or technical standard for peer review.

If a manuscript is clearly out of scope, incomplete, ethically problematic, or unsuitable for review, it may be returned to the authors or rejected at the editorial stage.

5.2 Peer-Review Model

Peer review is used to assess the scholarly soundness, originality, clarity, methodological rigor, relevance, and contribution of submitted manuscripts.

The default peer-review model for many TRP journals is single-blind review, in which reviewers know the identities of the authors, while authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Individual TRP journals may adopt other models, such as double-blind peer review or optional open peer review, where this is clearly stated in the journal policy.

5.3 Reviewer Reports

TRP recommends obtaining at least two substantive and independent reviewer reports for standard research manuscripts. If reviewer reports differ substantially, the responsible editor may request an additional review, consult another editor, or make a reasoned editorial assessment based on the available evidence.

Reviewer reports should be evaluated critically. Editors should not rely mechanically on reviewer recommendations, but should consider the quality, specificity, fairness, and relevance of the review comments.

5.4 Editorial Decision Options

Common editorial decisions include:

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

Editors should ensure that editorial decisions are based on scholarly merit, methodological quality, ethical compliance, journal scope, and reviewer feedback. Decision letters should be clear, professional, and actionable, enabling authors to understand the reasons for the decision and the steps required for revision where applicable.

5.5 Revision Rounds

TRP encourages efficient and fair revision management. Editors should avoid unnecessary or excessive rounds of revision. If fundamental methodological, ethical, or conceptual concerns remain unresolved after revision, rejection may be appropriate.

Revised manuscripts should normally be accompanied by a detailed point-by-point response explaining how reviewer and editor comments have been addressed.

6. Selecting and Managing Reviewers

6.1 Reviewer Selection Principles

Reviewers should be selected on the basis of expertise, independence, reliability, and professional conduct.

Appropriate reviewers should normally have:

  • relevant subject expertise;
  • methodological competence where required;
  • independence from the authors;
  • no apparent conflict of interest;
  • a record of scholarly, technical, or professional competence;
  • the ability to provide a timely, fair, and constructive report.

6.2 Conflicts of Interest in Reviewer Selection

Editors should avoid selecting reviewers who may have conflicts of interest with the authors, the manuscript, or the outcome of the review.

Potential conflicts may include:

  • recent collaboration or co-authorship with an author;
  • current or recent affiliation with the same institution, where this may create bias;
  • financial, personal, institutional, or professional interests that may affect impartiality;
  • close personal relationship, rivalry, or strong professional disagreement with an author;
  • direct involvement in the research under review.

Where uncertainty exists, editors should request clarification from the reviewer or select an alternative reviewer.

6.3 Reviewer Expectations

Reviewers invited by TRP journals are expected to:

  • treat manuscripts and review materials as confidential;
  • provide objective, evidence-based, and constructive feedback;
  • identify major and minor issues clearly;
  • disclose conflicts of interest;
  • report ethical or integrity concerns promptly;
  • submit reviews within the agreed timeframe.

Editors should monitor the quality and timeliness of reviewer reports and avoid repeated use of reviewers who provide biased, superficial, disrespectful, or unreliable reviews.

7. Confidentiality and Use of Technology

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, editorial correspondence, supplementary files, and decision materials must be treated as confidential during the editorial process. Editors must not share manuscript content outside the formal review and editorial workflow.

Editors must also protect confidentiality when using digital tools. In particular:

  • unpublished manuscripts, figures, tables, data, supplementary materials, and editorial correspondence must not be uploaded to public or third-party generative AI tools;
  • manuscript content must not be used for personal advantage or unrelated research;
  • confidential information obtained through editorial work must not be disclosed without authorization;
  • any TRP-approved internal tools must be used only in accordance with TRP guidance and applicable confidentiality requirements.

Editorial decisions must remain the responsibility of human academic editors.

8. Editorial Independence and Integrity

TRP maintains editorial independence. Editorial decisions must be based solely on scholarly merit, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, relevance to the journal, and the integrity of the work.

Editorial decisions must not be influenced by:

  • commercial considerations;
  • publisher pressure;
  • third-party requests;
  • personal relationships;
  • institutional pressures;
  • nationality, gender, ethnicity, religion, political views, disability, or other personal characteristics of the authors.

If an editor has a conflict of interest, including co-authorship, recent collaboration, close personal relationship, direct academic competition, or institutional conflict, the editor must recuse themselves and request reassignment of the manuscript to an independent editor.

9. Ethics and Publication Standards

Editors are responsible for ensuring that manuscripts comply with relevant research and publication ethics standards. They should pay particular attention to:

  • originality and avoidance of plagiarism or duplicate publication;
  • appropriate citation and accurate reporting;
  • adequate ethics approvals and informed consent where applicable;
  • protection of participant, patient, or personal privacy;
  • image integrity and absence of misleading manipulation;
  • disclosure of funding and conflicts of interest;
  • appropriate authorship and contribution statements;
  • transparency of data, materials, code, and methods.

If misconduct is suspected, such as plagiarism, data fabrication, falsification, inappropriate image manipulation, authorship misconduct, citation manipulation, or compromised peer review, the editor should escalate the matter to the TRP editorial office for investigation in accordance with TRP publication ethics procedures.

Possible outcomes may include:

  • rejection of the manuscript;
  • request for clarification or documentation;
  • correction;
  • expression of concern;
  • retraction after publication;
  • notification of relevant institutions or other appropriate parties.

10. Editorial Roles and Responsibilities

10.1 Editor-in-Chief

The Editor-in-Chief provides academic leadership for the journal and is responsible for maintaining editorial quality, scholarly direction, and research integrity.

Responsibilities may include:

  • shaping and maintaining the journal’s aims and scope;
  • building, supporting, and developing the editorial board;
  • overseeing editorial standards and decision quality;
  • ensuring consistency and fairness in editorial decisions;
  • resolving difficult cases, including appeals, complaints, disputes, and ethical concerns;
  • guiding journal development, special issues, topical priorities, and community engagement;
  • supporting the visibility, reputation, and scholarly quality of the journal.

10.2 Associate Editors and Section Editors

Associate Editors and Section Editors support the Editor-in-Chief by managing manuscripts within their areas of expertise.

Responsibilities may include:

  • assessing submissions for scope, quality, and suitability for review;
  • selecting appropriate reviewers;
  • evaluating reviewer reports;
  • making recommendations or final decisions according to journal policy;
  • advising on journal strategy and scope development;
  • supporting special issues, thematic sections, and editorial board development.

10.3 Advisory Board Members

Advisory Board Members provide strategic guidance and support for the journal’s development.

Their role may include:

  • advising on journal direction, policy, and scope;
  • supporting editorial standards and research integrity;
  • advising on complex appeals, disputes, or ethical matters where appropriate;
  • promoting the journal within relevant scholarly communities;
  • helping attract high-quality submissions and contributors.

10.4 Statistical Editors

Where appointed, Statistical Editors support the journal by reviewing the appropriateness, clarity, and reliability of statistical methods and reporting.

Their responsibilities may include ensuring that:

  • statistical methods are appropriate for the study design;
  • analyses are clearly described and interpretable;
  • results are presented transparently and accurately;
  • claims are supported by the analysis;
  • statistical reporting follows relevant disciplinary standards;
  • guidance on statistical reporting is updated where needed.

10.5 Editorial Board Members

Editorial Board Members contribute to the scholarly quality, reputation, and development of the journal.

They may be expected to:

  • handle manuscripts within their expertise when assigned;
  • recommend suitable reviewers;
  • review manuscripts where appropriate;
  • advise on journal scope, standards, and policy;
  • support journal visibility and outreach;
  • contribute to special issues, invited content, or strategic development.

10.6 Guest Editors

Guest Editors may be appointed to manage special issues, thematic collections, or invited article series.

Guest Editors are responsible for:

  • proposing a clear title, aims, scope, keywords, and rationale for the collection;
  • encouraging appropriate and high-quality submissions;
  • overseeing peer review in accordance with journal policy;
  • recommending editorial decisions based on reviewer reports and scholarly assessment;
  • maintaining confidentiality, fairness, and editorial integrity throughout the process;
  • identifying and disclosing conflicts of interest.

Final decision authority remains with the journal’s designated academic leadership, such as the Editor-in-Chief or delegated academic editor, according to the journal’s policy.

11. Production and Publication After Acceptance

After acceptance, TRP coordinates the production and publication process. This may include:

  • copyediting and formatting;
  • preparation of PDF and web-ready outputs;
  • metadata checks;
  • proof preparation and author proof handling;
  • final corrections;
  • online publication;
  • dissemination of metadata and content to indexing, discovery, and archiving services where applicable.

Editors may be asked to confirm final checks in special cases, such as ethical statements, authorship corrections, correction notices, retractions, or special issue materials.

12. Appeals, Complaints, and Disputes

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a clear, evidence-based explanation. Appeals should be handled consistently, fairly, and transparently.

Appeals may be:

  • reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief;
  • assigned to an independent editor where appropriate;
  • supported by policy references and manuscript-specific evidence;
  • referred for additional expert assessment if necessary;
  • escalated to ethics review where integrity concerns are alleged.

Complaints and disputes involving authorship, conflicts of interest, ethical approval, data reliability, plagiarism, peer-review integrity, or legal issues may require additional documentation or institutional input. In such cases, publication may be paused until the matter is resolved.

13. Editor Support and Contact

Editors requiring assistance with reviewer selection, editorial workflow, ethical concerns, appeals, complaints, production queries, or journal policy interpretation should contact the TRP editorial office through the official communication channels listed on technicalreport.org or on the relevant journal webpage.

TRP aims to support editors in maintaining fair, efficient, independent, and ethically responsible editorial processes across all TRP journals.