Instruction for Reviewers

1. What is peer review?

Peer review is the process by which experts in a specific field or discipline evaluate the validity, quality, and often the originality of a peer’s research, in order to determine its suitability for publication. This process may also foster networking opportunities within research communities.

Peer review is a critical component of scientific evaluation and serves as the foundation for safeguarding the quality and integrity of scholarly research. Although it has certain limitations, it remains the widely accepted method for research validation.

2. TBench’s Peer Review model

Double-anonymized Peer Review

This journal uses double-anonymized review, which means the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa.

3. Peer review process

Initial Manuscript Screening

Our journal is dedicated to the rapid publication of rigorous, high-quality research. Therefore, authors are expected to submit manuscripts that have been thoroughly proofread and refined for clarity, accuracy, and overall presentation. Upon submission, the editorial office conducts a preliminary review of all manuscripts to assess:

• Ethical compliance (We will continuing to review your Ethical Declaration & Statement both during peer review and prior to final publication to ensure the research meets ethical standards. If any potential ethical concerns arise—such as plagiarism, or missing informed consent for human or animal studies—the editorial office may pause the review process and contact the Editor. The manuscript will remain on hold until the authors provide the necessary documentation in accordance with ethical guidelines.)

• plagiarism check

• Whether the manuscript complies with the double-anonymized review rules

Manuscripts failing to meet these basic standards will be desk rejected without being sent to reviewers. Authors will be informed accordingly. Manuscripts passing this stage will be assigned to the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an Associate Editor (AE) or an Founding Editor(FE).

Editor Assignment and Reviewer Invitation

After EIC or AE or FE of the manuscripts are assigned, they will first have a comprehensive reading of your work. Desk rejection may happen during this period due to several reasons such as out of the journal’s scope, lack of novelty, unclear language expression, and so on. Reviewers will not be invited under these circumstances. Suitable manuscripts will typically be sent to at least 2 independent expert reviewers for evaluation of their scientific merit and quality. The review process is generally completed within 1 to 2 months, depending on the editors’ and reviewers’ personal schedules. However, this period may be extended if editors and reviewers are simultaneously handling multiple manuscripts.

Feedback to Authors

Based on reviewers’ comments, the handling editor provides detailed feedback to the authors. Decisions at this stage may include acceptance, revision (minor or major), or rejection.

Revised Manuscript Handling

When authors submit revised manuscripts, the original handling editor and reviewers are invited to reassess the submission. The final decision regarding acceptance or rejection will be made based on updated reviewer comments and editor assessment.

Final Decision

The Editor-in-Chief or the designated handling editor makes the final decision on all manuscripts. The editorial decision is final and binding.

After assignment, the editor reviews the manuscript for scope, novelty, and clarity. Suitable manuscripts are sent to at least 2 independent expert reviewers. The review process typically completes within 1-2 months, depending on schedules.

4. How peer reviewers are selected?

The handling editors invite at least two reviewers per manuscript. Reviewer selection follows these principles:

Reviewers should have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript.
Reviewers should have no conflicts of interest with any of the authors.
Reviewers should accept assignments only if they can review the manuscript fairly and without bias.

5. How to perform a review and prepare a review report

If you agree to review a manuscript, follow these steps:

-Before you review

Have you read the journal’s instructions for reviewers?
Do you understand the peer review process of the journal?
Do you know the journal’s aims and scope?

-Start your review

Familiarize Yourself with the Journal

Read the journal’s official website, its Aims and Scope, and Instructions for Authors.

Review the Manuscript in Detail

Examine all components, including tables, figures, and supplementary materials. Pay attention to:

Originality and relevance
Methodological rigor
Evidence and conclusions

Write a report （Recommended template）

Make an overall recommendation

Choose one:

Accept: Meets journal standards; ready for publication.
Minor Revisions: Small adjustments needed; typically 5 days for revision.
Major Revisions: Substantial improvements required; typically 20 days for revision.
Reject: Not suitable due to critical issues; resubmission not considered.

Provide feedback

Summary: Briefly summarize the aims, methods, key findings, and significance of the manuscript. Provide an overall assessment of the study’s originality, scientific quality, and relevance to the journal.
Strengths: Highlight positive aspects of the work.
Weaknesses: Point out areas needing improvement.

6. Ethical guidelines and Responsibilities for peer reviewers

Peer reviewers should evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and confidentially. Follow COPE Ethical Guidelines: COPE Guidelines.

Evaluate manuscripts solely on academic merit.
Disclose conflicts of interest.
Treat all manuscripts as confidential.
Provide clear, respectful, evidence-based feedback.
Prepare reviews independently and avoid using AI tools.
Submit reviews on time.
Inform editors of plagiarism, duplication, or ethical issues.

7. Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential until publication. Reviewers must not share content or use it in AI tools. Reviewers’ identities remain anonymous.