For Editors

1. What editors should do if they are assigned the article?

① For each manuscript, editors are required to invite at least two reviewers who have no conflicts of interest with the authors(reviewers should be in different institutions with the authors).

② The authors' names and affiliations are displayed at the top of the page after you click "Add Reviewer" in the dashboard.

③ Please ensure that the manuscript falls within the journal's scope, including benchmarks, standards, evaluations, optimizations, and datasets. For detailed information about the journal's aims and scope, please visit the “About the journal” ：https://journal.benchcouncil.org/TBench/Aboutthejournal.

④ After the reviewers complete their evaluations, the editor can make a decision based on their recommendations.

2. Why can editors only see the Highlights and the "Manuscript without Author Identifiers" file? How can they view the complete submission files?

For all manuscripts, the Editorial Office removes the Cover Page, Title Page with Author Information, and Declaration and Statement files before sending the submission to editors. Editors receive only the Highlights (if available) and the Manuscript without author identifiers to ensure a double-anonymized review process.

This prevents files containing the authors' identifying information from being inadvertently sent to reviewers when editors invite reviewers through the system.

If you would like to view the complete submission files, click the "Submission" stage on the left side of your dashboard. By default, you will usually be in the "Review" stage, where you can add and invite reviewers.

3. About Journal’s review models -- Double-Anonymized Review

This journal employs a double-anonymized review process, meaning that authors’ identities are concealed from reviewers, and vice versa. The editorial office conducts an initial screening to ensure authors comply with this requirement, so editors do not need to spend time checking it. However, if an editor discovers that authors have revealed their names or affiliations in the “Manuscript Page Without Author Identifiers,” which violates this rule, they should immediately contact the editorial office and suspend the review process.

4. Peer review process

Initial Manuscript Screening (Editorial Office)

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 continue 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 a 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 two to three 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.

5. About Conflicts of Interest

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.