Reviewers / Referees policy

This page was last updated on 08/03/2021.


TCJ’s reviewers / referees have responsibility to perform specific work for the journal on an invitation basis. Given that most of these individuals are in full-time employment or carry responsibilities in their other spaces, their support as a referee / reviewing activities to the manuscripts for TCJ must, by necessity, may not be on top of their work calendar. Referees / Reviewers are free to decline invitations to review a particular manuscripts at their discretion, for example, if workload at their end and/or other commitments make it difficult / prohibitive for them to complete a review in a timely fashion and to do justice to the task in the available timeframe. They should also not accept manuscript review assignments for which they feel unqualified in terms of domain scope or are having any conflict of interest.

Referees / reviewers who have accepted to study the submitted manuscript assignments are normally expected to submit their reviews within 10 to 15 days. They should excuse themselves from any such responsibility related to the assignment if it is known to them or have any apprehension at any stage that they do not possess the required expertise to perform the review, or that they may invite a potential conflict of interest in performing the review (e.g., one resulting from collaborating on the same subject of research / work, involved in the competitive work, or other influential relationships or personal connections with any of the authors, institutions, or companies associated with the manuscript).

Any privileged information or ideas which are obtained by reviewers through the above said review process must be kept confidential and not used for any personal interest, economic benefits or advantage. Any of the manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents, and must not be shown to or discussed with others except as authorized by the Editor.

During their process of reviewing and giving any feedback, the reviewers / referees are expected to do so as objectively as possible, refraining from engaging in any subjective or opinionated statements or any personal level criticism of the author(s). They are encouraged to express their views clearly irrespective of being agreement or not with the authors, explaining and justifying all recommendations made. They should always attempt to leverage their professional knowledge on the manuscript, provide detailed and constructive feedback to assist the author(s) in improving their work, even if the manuscript is, in their opinion, not worth publishing in part or full.

The referees / reviewers should identify in their reviews if any relevant published work, which would make a distinct value in the manuscript, has not been cited by the author(s), or if any instances in which proper attribution of sources has not been considered. They should also call to the responsible editor’s attention if any major resemblances exists between a manuscript under consideration and other published articles or papers of which they are aware, as well as any concerns they might have in relation to the ethical acceptability of the research reported in the manuscript.