1. Overview of the TRP Peer-Review Process
1.1 Initial Editorial Assessment
After a manuscript is submitted to a Technical Report Press (TRP) journal, the editorial office conducts an initial screening, also referred to as a pre-check. This assessment is intended to determine whether the submission is complete, suitable for the journal, and ready for editorial consideration.
The initial screening may include checks for:
- alignment with the journal’s aims and scope;
- completeness of required files and declarations;
- basic formatting and manuscript organization;
- ethical statements, where applicable;
- originality concerns, including potential plagiarism or duplicate submission;
- clarity, scholarly relevance, and minimum scientific or technical standard.
Following this pre-check, a suitable academic editor, such as the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editor, Editorial Board Member, or Guest Editor for a special issue, evaluates the manuscript and decides whether to:
- proceed to external peer review;
- request changes before external review;
- reject the manuscript at the editorial stage.
1.2 External Peer Review
If the manuscript proceeds to review, the responsible editor, with support from the TRP editorial office, invites independent reviewers through Scholar Manuscript or the relevant journal submission system.
TRP journals normally aim to obtain at least two substantive and independent review reports. If reviewer reports differ substantially, the editor may request an additional review, seek further expert advice, or make an editorial assessment based on the available evidence.
1.3 Revision and Editorial Decision
Authors may be invited to revise their manuscript and provide a detailed point-by-point response to reviewer and editor comments. Depending on the extent and nature of the revisions, the revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed directly by the responsible editor.
The final editorial decision is made by the responsible academic editor in accordance with the journal’s scope, scholarly standards, reviewer comments, ethical requirements, and editorial policy.
1.4 Production After Acceptance
Once a manuscript is accepted, it proceeds to production. This stage may include copyediting, formatting, typesetting, proof preparation, metadata preparation, and final publication on the journal website.
2. Eligibility to Review for TRP
Reviewers should have appropriate expertise and the ability to evaluate the manuscript fairly, confidentially, and constructively. TRP expects reviewers to have one or more of the following qualifications:
- relevant subject expertise or methodological expertise;
- an active scholarly, technical, or professional record;
- publications, research projects, professional experience, or recognized expertise in the relevant field;
- an academic or professional affiliation, where applicable;
- the ability to provide a timely, objective, and constructive review report.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must decline the invitation or contact the editorial office before accepting if any conflict of interest could compromise, or appear to compromise, their impartiality.
Potential conflicts of interest may include:
- working at the same institution as one of the authors in a way that may affect impartiality;
- recent collaboration, co-authorship, or joint funding with an author;
- close personal relationship, rivalry, or strong professional disagreement with an author;
- financial, institutional, academic, or professional interests in the outcome of the review;
- any other circumstance that could reasonably be perceived as bias.
Previous review of the same manuscript for another journal or venue is not automatically a conflict of interest. However, reviewers should inform the editor if this prior involvement may be relevant to the editorial assessment.
3. Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining the quality, reliability, and integrity of scholarly publication. TRP expects reviewers to follow recognized ethical principles for peer review, including relevant guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).
Reviewers are expected to:
- provide an independent, objective, and evidence-based assessment;
- evaluate the manuscript fairly and without personal bias;
- maintain strict confidentiality;
- provide respectful, constructive, and professional comments;
- identify the strengths and weaknesses of the manuscript clearly;
- distinguish major issues from minor points;
- alert the editor to ethical, methodological, or integrity concerns;
- submit the review within the agreed deadline.
4. Using Scholar Manuscript
4.1 Responding to a Review Invitation
When a reviewer receives an invitation through Scholar Manuscript or the relevant submission system, they should first review the manuscript title, abstract, and any available metadata to determine whether the manuscript is within their expertise and whether any conflict of interest exists.
Reviewers should:
- accept or decline the invitation as soon as possible;
- decline the invitation if the manuscript is outside their expertise;
- declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting;
- suggest alternative qualified reviewers when declining, where possible;
- request an extension early if additional time is needed.
4.2 Submitting a Review Report
Reviewers are usually asked to submit:
- comments for the authors;
- confidential comments for the editor, where appropriate;
- an overall recommendation, such as accept, minor revision, major revision, or reject, depending on the journal’s review settings.
Comments for the authors should be constructive, clear, and suitable for sharing with the authors. Confidential comments to the editor should be used for sensitive concerns, ethical issues, or matters that should not be communicated directly to the authors.
Reviewers should not reveal their identity in the review report unless the journal explicitly permits signed review and the reviewer chooses to sign the report.
5. Confidentiality
All manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents. Until publication, the manuscript and all related materials, including data, figures, tables, methods, supplementary files, reviewer correspondence, and editorial communications, must not be disclosed or used outside the peer-review process.
Reviewers must not:
- share the manuscript with colleagues or students without permission;
- post or discuss the manuscript publicly;
- use unpublished ideas, data, methods, or results for personal advantage;
- contact the authors directly about the manuscript unless authorized by the editor.
If a reviewer believes that a colleague or trainee should assist with the review, they must first obtain permission from the editorial office. Any approved co-reviewer must meet reviewer standards and must also comply with confidentiality and ethical requirements. The co-reviewer’s contribution should be disclosed to the editor.
6. Preparing a High-Quality Review
6.1 Elements to Review Carefully
Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript as a complete scholarly work. This includes careful consideration of:
- research question, aims, and contribution;
- study design and methodology;
- data, evidence, and analysis;
- statistical methods, where relevant;
- figures, tables, and supplementary materials;
- interpretation of results;
- relationship between evidence and conclusions;
- originality and relevance to the field;
- quality and appropriateness of references;
- clarity, organization, and academic presentation;
- ethical and transparency statements, where applicable.
6.2 Recommended Structure of a Review Report
A strong review report usually includes the following elements:
- brief summary: a short paragraph summarizing the manuscript’s purpose, main claim, and contribution;
- major comments: substantive issues affecting validity, methodology, interpretation, originality, contribution, analysis, missing information, or ethical compliance;
- minor comments: points related to clarity, terminology, organization, grammar, formatting, figure or table labeling, and small corrections;
- ethics and transparency comments: observations on ethics approval, informed consent, conflicts of interest, data availability, image integrity, plagiarism concerns, or reproducibility issues;
- recommendation: a clear recommendation supported by specific reasoning.
Reviewers should ensure that their recommendation is consistent with the substance of their comments. For example, a recommendation for rejection or major revision should be supported by clearly explained concerns.
6.3 Tone and Citation Practices
Review reports should be written in a neutral, respectful, and constructive tone. Criticism should address the manuscript, not the authors.
Reviewers should not request citations for self-promotion or to increase citations to their own work. Suggested references should be recommended only when they are genuinely necessary to improve accuracy, context, completeness, or scholarly balance. If important literature is missing, reviewers should explain why it is relevant.
7. Key Questions for Reviewers
Reviewers may consider the following questions when preparing their assessment:
- Is the manuscript clearly written and logically structured?
- Is the work relevant to the aims and scope of the journal?
- Does the manuscript make a clear contribution to the field?
- Are the aims, research questions, or hypotheses clearly stated?
- Are the methods appropriate and sufficiently described?
- Are the results supported by the data and analysis presented?
- Are the figures and tables accurate, readable, and consistent with the text?
- Are the conclusions justified and not overstated?
- Are limitations adequately acknowledged?
- Are ethical approval, consent, and research-integrity statements adequate, where applicable?
- Is the work original and properly situated within the literature?
- Are references accurate, relevant, and sufficient?
- Is the manuscript suitable for publication after revision, or are the concerns too substantial?
8. Research Integrity and Ethical Concerns
Reviewers should alert the editorial office through confidential comments if they suspect any matter that may affect the integrity of the manuscript or the publication process.
Such concerns may include:
- plagiarism or substantial textual overlap;
- duplicate or redundant publication;
- fabricated, falsified, manipulated, or inconsistent data;
- inappropriate image alteration or figure manipulation;
- missing or inadequate ethics approval;
- missing informed consent or publication consent;
- undisclosed conflicts of interest;
- inappropriate authorship practices;
- citation manipulation;
- peer-review manipulation;
- other concerns that could compromise trust in the work.
Reviewers are not expected to investigate suspected misconduct themselves. They should report their concerns to the editor with as much specific information as possible.
9. Use of AI Tools During Peer Review
Confidentiality is central to the peer-review process. Reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, tables, data, supplementary files, or confidential editorial correspondence into public or third-party generative AI tools. Doing so may breach confidentiality, copyright, data protection obligations, and publication ethics standards.
Reviewers remain fully responsible for the content, accuracy, fairness, and integrity of their review reports.
Limited use of tools for spelling, grammar, or language improvement may be acceptable only where it does not involve sharing confidential manuscript content with unauthorized third parties and complies with TRP policy.
AI tools must not be used to generate a review report in a way that substitutes the reviewer’s own scholarly judgment.
10. Reviewer Recognition
TRP values the essential contribution made by reviewers to the scholarly publishing process. Depending on the practice of the individual journal, TRP may provide:
- reviewer confirmation letters or certificates upon request;
- annual public acknowledgment of reviewers, where appropriate and subject to privacy considerations;
- consideration for editorial roles based on consistently high-quality, timely, and constructive reviewing.
Because TRP operates under a diamond open access model and does not charge article processing charges, TRP does not provide APC discount vouchers.
11. Assistance and Editorial Contact
Reviewers who experience technical difficulties with Scholar Manuscript or the relevant submission system should contact the journal’s editorial office using the contact details provided in the review invitation.
Reviewers should also contact the editorial office if they have questions about:
- conflicts of interest;
- confidentiality;
- review deadlines;
- access to manuscript files;
- ethical concerns;
- use of co-reviewers;
- submission of review reports;
- editorial procedures.
TRP appreciates reviewers’ time, expertise, and commitment to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.