1. How the TRJ review process works
1.1 What happens after submission
When a manuscript is submitted, the TRJ editorial office completes an initial screening (“pre-check”) to confirm that the submission is complete and broadly suitable for review. This stage may include checks for:
scope fit, basic formatting and required files,
ethical statements (when relevant),
originality concerns (e.g., potential plagiarism),
clarity and minimum scientific/technical standard.
A suitable academic editor (e.g., Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editorial Board Member, or Guest Editor for a Special Issue) then evaluates the manuscript and decides whether to:
proceed to external peer review,
request changes before review, or
reject at the editorial stage.
1.2 External peer review
If the manuscript proceeds, the editor (with support from the TRJ office) invites independent reviewers through the Scholar Manuscript system. TRJ normally aims to obtain at least two substantive reviews. If reports strongly disagree, additional review or editorial assessment may be requested.
1.3 Revision and decision
Authors may be asked to revise and provide a point-by-point response. Depending on the extent of changes, the revised manuscript may be returned to reviewers. The final decision is made by the responsible academic editor.
1.4 Production after acceptance
Accepted papers move to production (copyediting/formatting, proofing, metadata preparation) before publication on the journal website.
2. Who can review for TRJ
Reviewers should have relevant expertise and a strong ability to assess the manuscript fairly and confidentially. Typical expectations include:
appropriate subject or methodological expertise,
an active scholarly or professional record (publications, projects, or recognized expertise),
a clear academic/professional affiliation (where applicable),
the ability to provide a timely and constructive report.
Conflicts of interest
You should decline the invitation or contact the editorial office if you have any conflict that could compromise impartiality, for example:
you work at the same institution as an author (in a way that may bias the review),
you have recently collaborated or co-authored with an author,
you have a close personal relationship, rivalry, or strong antipathy,
you could gain financially or professionally from the outcome,
any other circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as bias.
If you previously reviewed the same work for another venue, that is not automatically a conflict; however, you may inform the editor if it helps context.
3. Your responsibilities as a reviewer
Reviewers play a critical role in research integrity. TRJ expects reviewers to follow ethical peer review principles (including COPE guidance) and to:
provide an independent, evidence-based assessment,
keep all manuscript content confidential,
deliver a respectful, professional review,
identify strengths and weaknesses clearly,
flag ethical or integrity concerns promptly,
submit the review within the agreed deadline.
4. Using Scholar Manuscript (practical steps)
4.1 Responding to an invitation
When you receive an invitation in Scholar Manuscript:
review the title and abstract first,
accept or decline as soon as possible,
if declining, suggest alternative reviewers when you can,
if you need more time, request an extension early.
4.2 Submitting your report
You will typically submit:
comments for the authors (visible to authors),
optional confidential comments to the editor,
an overall recommendation (accept/minor/major/reject, depending on the journal settings).
Please avoid revealing your identity in comments unless the journal explicitly supports signed review and you choose to sign.
5. Confidentiality
Until publication, the manuscript and its content—including data, figures, methods, and supplementary files—must be treated as confidential. You must not:
share it with colleagues,
post it publicly,
use the ideas or results for personal advantage.
If you believe a colleague should assist you, you must first ask the editorial office for permission. Any co-reviewer must meet reviewer standards and must also comply with confidentiality.
6. Guidance for writing a high-quality review
6.1 What to read carefully
Please review the entire manuscript, including:
methods and study design,
figures/tables and whether they support conclusions,
statistical analysis (where relevant),
references and context,
supplementary files (if provided).
6.2 Recommended structure of your review
A strong review typically includes:
Brief summary (1 short paragraph): what the paper claims to do and its main contribution.
Major comments: the most important issues that affect validity, interpretation, or contribution (methods, controls, analysis, missing information, conceptual problems).
Minor comments: clarity, organization, terminology, small corrections, figure/table labeling.
Ethics and transparency checks: conflicts of interest, approvals/consent, data availability, image integrity, plagiarism concerns (if suspected).
Recommendation: accept / minor revision / major revision / reject, with clear reasoning.
6.3 Tone and citation practices
Keep a neutral, constructive tone.
Do not request citations for self-promotion. Suggest references only when they genuinely improve accuracy, context, or completeness.
If you suspect missing key citations, explain why they matter.
7. What to evaluate (common review questions)
Consider these questions when forming your report:
Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
Is the work relevant to the journal’s scope and audience?
Are the aims and methods appropriate and adequately described?
Are results supported by the presented evidence and analysis?
Are figures/tables accurate, readable, and consistent with the text?
Are conclusions justified and not overstated?
Are limitations acknowledged?
Are ethics statements and consent/approval information adequate (if applicable)?
Is the work original and properly cited?
8. Research integrity and ethical concerns
Please alert the editorial office (via confidential comments) if you suspect:
plagiarism or duplicate publication,
fabricated, manipulated, or inconsistent data,
inappropriate image alteration,
missing ethics approval or patient/participant consent,
undisclosed conflicts of interest,
other concerns that could compromise trust in the work.
9. Use of AI tools during peer review (confidentiality first)
Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, supplementary files, or confidential editorial correspondence into public or third-party generative AI tools. Doing so may breach confidentiality and data protection obligations.
Reviewers are responsible for the content of their review reports. Limited use of tools for spelling/grammar improvement may be acceptable only if it does not involve sharing confidential manuscript content and complies with TRJ policy.
10. Reviewer recognition (TRJ)
TRJ values reviewer contributions. Depending on journal practices, TRJ may provide:
a reviewer confirmation letter or certificate upon request,
annual public acknowledgement of reviewers (where appropriate and with privacy considerations),
consideration for editorial roles based on consistently high-quality reviewing.
(TRJ does not provide APC discount vouchers because TRJ is diamond open access and does not charge APCs.)
11. Need help?
If you experience technical issues in Scholar Manuscript or have questions about conflicts of interest, confidentiality, or deadlines, contact the journal’s editorial office using the contact details provided in your invitation.