6. Peer-Review Policy

6.1. Peer Reviewer Selection and Training

Peer review selection

In general, reviewer selection follows three basic principles:

• Reviewers should have expertise in the subject area of the manuscript, regardless of their career stage. Editors may request evaluations of specific aspects of the work, even if the overall topic is not the reviewer’s primary specialty.

• Editors should make every effort to avoid inviting reviewers who may have a potential conflict of interest with any of the authors. Potential conflicts of interest include, but are not limited to: Being currently employed at the same institution as any of the authors or having served as a mentor, mentee, close collaborator, or joint grant holder with any of the authors within the past three years. Reviewers should accept an invitation only if no such conflicts exist between themselves and any of the authors.

• Reviewers should not accept a review assignment solely to gain access to the manuscript without intending to submit a review. They should also decline invitations to review manuscripts that are very similar to a work they currently have in preparation or under consideration at another journal.

Peer review training

All reviewers who receive an invitation and agree to review for the journal are expected to visit the journal’s homepage and carefully read the “Instructions for Reviewers” before beginning the review process. If reviewers have any questions, they may contact the editorial office, which will provide assistance to support them in completing the review.

6.2. Peer review policy

This journal operates a double-blind review process. The Editor will initially assess all contributions for suitability for the journal. Papers deemed suitable are then typically sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers to evaluate the paper's scientific quality. The Editor is responsible for the final decision regarding the acceptance or rejection of articles. The Editor's decision is final. Editors are not involved in decisions about papers that they have written themselves or have been written by family members or colleagues or related to products or services in which the Editor has a conflict of interest. Any such submission is subject to the journal's usual procedures, with peer review handled independently of the relevant Editor and their research groups.

6.3. 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 approval (if applicable)

• Similarity check (plagiarism or high overlap)

• Simultaneous submission 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).

Editor Assignment and Reviewer Invitation

After EIC or AE 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.

6.4. Peer review models

About Double anonymized review

This journal uses double anonymized review, which means the authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa. To facilitate this, please include the following separately:

• Title page (with author details): This should include the title, authors' names, affiliations, acknowledgments, and a complete address for the corresponding author, including an e-mail address.

• Anonymized manuscript (no author details): The main body of the paper (including the references, figures, tables) should not include any identifying information, such as the authors' names or affiliations.

6.5. AI use by peer reviewers

The peer review process plays a critical role in scientific publishing. It relies heavily on the reviewers' in-depth subject knowledge and, in some cases, on the nuanced judgment and intuition of human experts. Currently, AI tools cannot fulfill the same role as humans, particularly in providing accurate, unbiased, and rigorous evaluations across all fields. Moreover, there is always a time lag between updates to AI tools and the advancement of cutting-edge research.

For reasons of confidentiality, reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, or any portion thereof, to generative AI tools. Doing so may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of the journal or its authors and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could also constitute a breach of data privacy regulations.

6.6. Peer Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethics

Peer reviewers are essential to maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publishing. They should evaluate manuscripts fairly, objectively, and confidentially, providing constructive feedback in a timely manner. This journal follows the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers and expects all reviewers to adhere to these principles. (COPE)

Responsibilities of reviewers

✔ Evaluate each manuscript solely on its academic merit, without discrimination based on personal or institutional factors.

✔ Disclose any personal, professional, or financial relationships that could influence their judgment, and decline to review if such conflicts exist.

✔ Treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. Do not share, discuss, or use unpublished content for personal advantage. Manuscript content must not be entered into tools or platforms that cannot...

✔ Give clear, respectful, and evidence-based comments that help the author improve their work, avoiding personal criticism or defamatory language.

✔ Prepare the review independently unless authorized to involve others, and do not impersonate another reviewer. Avoid using AI tools to generate review content.

✔ Submit the review within the agreed timeframe, and notify the editor if delays are unavoidable.

✔ Inform the editorial team if they identify potential plagiarism, duplication, or other ethical issues.

Confidentiality

This journal uses a double-anonymized peer review process. Until publication, reviewers must treat all manuscript content — including the abstract — as strictly confidential. They should also ensure that their identity is not disclosed to the authors, whether through comments, file properties, or metadata in any submitted reports (e.g., Microsoft Word or PDF files). Additionally, reviewers are not permitted to upload the manuscript, or any portion of it, to generative AI tools. Doing so may violate the confidentiality and proprietary rights of Tbench or the authors, and, if the manuscript contains personally identifiable information, could also result in a violation of data privacy regulations.

Management of Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Board Submissions

Editors must recuse themselves from handling any manuscript where a conflict of interest exists, including but not limited to:

• Manuscripts authored by themselves, their family members, or close colleagues.

• Manuscripts involving products, services, or interests in which they have a financial or personal stake.

Such manuscripts will be reassigned to an independent editor with no conflicts, who will oversee the confidential review process and make the final editorial decision.

For manuscripts submitted by the Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Guest Editors, or other editorial board members, editorial responsibility will similarly be delegated to a conflict-free editor to ensure impartiality. In the case of Special Issues, if conflicts arise between Guest Editors and authors, the handling will be transferred to editors free of such conflicts.

6.7. Peer reviewer guidance

- Before you review

✔ Have you read the journal’s instructions for reviewers?

✔ Do you understand the peer review process of the journal you’re reviewing for?

✔ Do you know the journal’s aims and scope?

- Start your review

① Familiarize Yourself with the Journal: Before starting the review, visit the journal’s official website (xxx) to carefully read its Aims and Scope as well as the Instructions for Authors. This will help you determine whether the manuscript under review aligns with the journal’s focus and meets its publication criteria.

② Review the Manuscript in Detail: When reading the manuscript, be sure to examine all components, including tables, figures, and any supplementary materials. In providing your assessment, pay particular attention to:

• Originality and Relevance – Whether the work offers novel insights, is clearly presented, and is of interest to the journal’s target audience.

• Methodological Rigor – The accuracy and soundness of the research methods used.

• Evidence and Conclusions – Whether the results logically and adequately support the conclusions presented.

③ Write a report

There are two purposes for your report: to provide the editor with information to enable them to make a decision, and to provide feedback to the author to help improve their work. A clear and structured report is recommended. It may include the following sections:

a. Strengths – Highlight positive aspects of the work, such as:

✔ The study presents a highly novel research topic.

✔ It offers valuable recommendations that may benefit ongoing studies in the field.

✔ It addresses a significant gap in existing research.

b. Weaknesses – Point out areas that may need improvement, such as:

✔ Certain sections lack clarity or require more precise wording.

✔ The methods section could benefit from additional details to ensure reproducibility.

✔ The research reveals an interesting result regarding ...; however, further discussion on its meaning and potential implications would strengthen the paper.

④ Make an overall recommendation

After completing your review and evaluating the manuscript’s quality, please select one of the following recommendations to assist the editor in making a decision:

• Accept – The manuscript meets the journal’s standards and can be accepted for publication without further changes.

• Minor Revisions – The paper is generally suitable for publication but requires small adjustments (e.g., clarifying text, minor formatting corrections, or addressing limited reviewer comments). Authors are normally given five days to complete these revisions.

• Major Revisions – The manuscript shows potential but needs substantial improvements—such as additional data analysis, expansion of the literature review, or reworking of specific sections. Authors should provide a point-by-point response to each reviewer comment or clearly explain if certain suggestions cannot be implemented. Authors are generally given 20 days to submit the revised version, which will be sent back to the reviewer for further evaluation.

• Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in this journal due to serious methodological flaws, lack of originality, or other critical issues. In such cases, resubmission of the same paper will not be considered. If helpful, reviewers may explain in the confidential comments whether the recommendation is based on the significance of the research or on technical deficiencies.

6.8. Peer reviewer misconduct

Providing false or misleading information—for example, identity theft and suggesting fake peer-reviewers—will result in the rejection of the manuscript, and notification to the authors’ institutions/employers.

More information about peer reviewer fraud/falsification can be found here.