Reviewer Guidelines

TJSOP only publishes high-quality, original, empirical, and theoretical research. However, the Journal encourages early-career researchers to submit their work and prioritizes research written in English and using empirical methods.

Submission of a manuscript to TJSOP does not mean it will be published. To be published in TJSOP, the Journal first conducts a detailed review of the submission by the Editors. The Editorial Review consists of but is not limited to the following:

  • The research's originality and contribution to the field.
  • The research's compatibility with the Journal's scope and aim.
  • The research's language proficiency.

Should the submission be deemed to be included in the journal's review cycle, at least two reviewers will be assigned to the manuscript for comprehensive evaluation. The peer-review process follows a double-blind process, which means that neither the authors nor the peer reviewers know each others’ identities.

We encourage reviewers to follow the COPE's Ethical Guidelines for the reviewing process. The reviewers are assigned to the manuscripts considering their field of expertise and trust in their knowledge and ethical principles. To achieve a high-quality and ethical peer-review process, reviewers should:

  • Decline the invitation if they feel uncomfortable about their expertise on the proposed manuscript.
  • Decline the invitation if they cannot complete the process within the requested timeframe due to their schedule.
  • Decline the invitation or notify the Editors upon their acceptance of the invitation if there are any competing interests in which they may be involved.

After acceptance of the invitation, reviewers should strictly follow the ethical guidelines below:

  • Their use of language throughout the review report cannot be degrading or humiliating.
  • They cannot be biased against any race, religious belief, nationality, gender, or locale.
  • They should clearly and explicitly indicate the points in the manuscripts throughout their reviews when they would like to comment or make suggestions.
  • They should conduct a comprehensive, detailed, and objective evaluation of the manuscript.

Any conflict of these ethical guidelines by the reviewers will result in ignoring their review and notifying their institutions about their ethical violation of the peer-review process.

After completing the detailed review of the manuscript, the reviewers should make one of the following recommendations about the manuscript to the Editors:

  • Accept submission
  • Revisions required
  • Resubmit for review
  • Resubmit elsewhere
  • Decline submission
  • See comments

If the reviewers recommend resubmitting it for review, the editors will send it to them after getting the revised version from the authors. If the reviewers' recommendation is revisions required, they must respond to the question in the form of whether they are willing to review the revised version of the submission.

The average length of time for the initial review by the editorial team is one to two weeks from the date of submission. The average length of time for peer review is four weeks per reviewer in addition to the time needed to secure peer reviewers. The average peer review process takes between two to four months. Delays may occur in the process depending on the volume of new articles that are being received, the order in which they are received, the ease of finding a willing peer reviewer, and our publication schedule.