All manuscripts submitted to the TTRRPBS journal for publication undergo an initial screening by the reviewing committee, which verifies the authenticity, accuracy, relevance of the research therein, and other requirements. After this, the manuscript is sent to the Editor-in-Chief of the TTRRPBS journal who will take the final decision on whether the manuscript should be -
Every manuscript that is submitted to the TTRRPBS journal and successfully passes the preliminary screening process, will be then subject to a meticulous, uncompromising, and completely anonymous peer-review process by at least two peer reviewers. The identity of the author of the manuscript will remain unknown to the reviewers and vice versa. This is to ensure that the TTRRPBS's journal policy of entirely merit-based publication, by which only the most authentic, relevant, and pioneering research articles are accepted and chosen for publication, is carried out. There will be no room for any compromises in the form of decisions taken as a result of favors, partialities, and biases at TTRRPBS. The editorial committee at TTRRPBS serves as the intermediary between the reviewing committee and the authors, to ensure that there is no contact between the two throughout the reviewing and publication process. The reviewing committee is given a period of two to three weeks to undertake and carry out their reviews. In the case of manuscripts that have been sent back for edits and revisions, the editorial committee carries out an assessment to ensure that all requested changes have been made by the author before deeming the manuscript as acceptable.
Peer review / responsibility for the reviewers
The following are deemed as the responsibilities of all reviewers in charge of undertaking the reviewing process of manuscripts submitted for publication at the TTRRPBS journal.
Peer reviews assist the editorial committee and the Editor-in-Chief of the TTRRPBS journal in easing the process of editorial decision-making, such as offering editorial suggestions to be relayed to authors to help them refine their manuscripts.
Any peer reviewer who has been selected to review manuscripts must recuse themselves from the reviewing process immediately (by notifying the Editor-in-Chief of the TTRRPBS journal) if they feel like they are not qualified enough to make decisions on a particular manuscript, or are compromising the peer-review process in any way.
Reviewers are required to keep the manuscripts that they receive for reviewing in utter confidentiality and not disclose or discuss the contents of any of these manuscripts with anybody, without obtaining prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviews are mandated to carry out their reviews from an objective standpoint and not to let their personal views or biases influence their decision-making at any point of the reviewing process. All views and suggestions expressed by the reviewers have to be backed by suitable reasoning and explanations.
Reviewers should be fully capable of identifying any statements within a manuscript that have been previously mentioned in other published research articles but have not been cited by the author of the manuscript. Reviewers should make sure that all such statements have appropriate citations. Reviewers are also mandated to bring any substantial similarities or comprehensive overlaps between the contents of a given manuscript and other published research articles, to the attention of the editorial committee and the Editor-in-Chief.
Reviewers are required to keep all classified data, concepts, and insights within manuscripts completely confidential and not disclose them or use them for personal gain in a way, shape, or form.
Reviewers are required to recuse themselves from reviewing any manuscript through which a conflict of interest as a result of competitive, collaborative, or associative connections/relationships with any of the authors, organizations, or institutions linked to a manuscript can arise, by notifying the Editor-in-Chief immediately.