Review Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

1. Purpose of Peer Review

Technology and Society Perspectives (TACIT) uses double-blind peer review to evaluate the originality, relevance, methodological quality, scholarly contribution, and ethical integrity of submitted manuscripts.

Reviewers play an essential role in maintaining publication quality and providing constructive feedback to authors.

2. Reviewer Qualifications

Reviewers should possess relevant academic or professional expertise, appropriate research experience, and the ability to evaluate manuscripts objectively.

Reviewers must be able to provide independent, constructive, and evidence-based assessments.

3. Reviewer Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial editorial screening are assigned to at least two qualified reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to their expertise and suitability for the manuscript.

The identities of authors and reviewers are concealed from each other as part of the double-blind review process.

4. Review Timeline

Reviewers are normally requested to complete their evaluations within two weeks.

Where additional time is required, the review period may extend to four weeks, subject to editorial coordination.

Reviewers who cannot complete an assignment within the requested period should notify the editor promptly.

5. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers should assess:

Originality and novelty.
Relevance to the journal's focus and scope.
Clarity of research objectives.
Strength of theoretical arguments.
Appropriateness and rigor of research methods.
Reliability and transparency of data analysis.
Quality of results and discussion.
Significance of theoretical and practical contributions.
Adequacy and relevance of references.
Compliance with publication ethics and scholarly writing standards.

6. Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend:

Acceptance.
Minor revision.
Major revision.
Rejection.

Recommendations must be supported by clear, specific, and constructive comments.

The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief or designated editor.

7. Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts and related editorial communications as confidential.

Unpublished material must not be disclosed, distributed, or used for personal research or professional advantage.

8. Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any financial, institutional, professional, personal, or intellectual conflict that may affect their impartiality.

Reviewers should decline assignments when an appropriate independent evaluation cannot be ensured.

9. Ethical Responsibilities

Reviewers must avoid discriminatory language, personal criticism, unsupported allegations, and inappropriate requests for citations.

Potential plagiarism, research misconduct, or significant ethical concerns should be reported confidentially to the editor.

10. Revised Manuscripts

Reviewers may be invited to evaluate revised manuscripts.

Follow-up assessments should focus on whether authors have adequately addressed the original comments and whether remaining concerns affect the manuscript's scholarly quality.