Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process and Policy

Technology and Society Perspectives (TACIT) applies a double-blind peer-review system to ensure independent and objective evaluation of scholarly manuscripts.

1. Initial Editorial Screening

Every submitted manuscript undergoes preliminary assessment by the editorial team.

This assessment considers relevance to the journal's focus and scope, originality, manuscript preparation, ethical compliance, and basic scholarly quality.

Manuscripts that do not satisfy these requirements may be returned for revision or rejected without external peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts considered suitable for review are assigned to at least two qualified reviewers.

Reviewers are selected according to subject expertise, independence, and availability.

The editorial team may invite additional reviewers when necessary.

3. Double-Blind Review

TACIT uses a double-blind process in which authors and reviewers do not receive each other's identities during review.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

4. Review Criteria

Reviewers evaluate:

  • Originality and scholarly contribution.

  • Relevance to the journal's scope.

  • Theoretical and conceptual quality.

  • Research design and methodological rigor.

  • Data analysis and interpretation.

  • Clarity of results and discussion.

  • Quality and relevance of references.

  • Compliance with research and publication ethics.

5. Review Timeline

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

The review period may extend to four weeks when additional time is required.

The overall editorial process may take longer depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and revision requirements.

6. Editorial Decisions

After considering reviewer reports, the editor may issue one of the following decisions:

  1. Accept submission.

  2. Request minor revisions.

  3. Request major revisions.

  4. Reject submission.

The editor may request additional reviews when reports contain significant disagreements or unresolved concerns.

7. Author Revisions

Authors receiving revision requests must address reviewer comments carefully and submit a revised manuscript.

A response explaining the revisions may be requested.

Revised manuscripts may undergo further review when necessary.

8. Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or authorized handling editor makes the final publication decision based on the manuscript's scholarly merit, ethical compliance, and peer-review outcomes.

Acceptance is not guaranteed by completion of the review process.

9. Confidentiality and Ethical Conduct

Editors and reviewers must maintain manuscript confidentiality and avoid conflicts of interest.

Suspected plagiarism, research misconduct, or other ethical concerns will be handled under the journal's Publication Ethics Policy.

10. Editorial Independence

Publication decisions are made independently of commercial considerations and are based on academic quality and ethical standards.