Reviewer Guidelines


The manuscripts to be reviewed are considered confidential communication. Once an unpublished manuscript is set in a fixed, tangible form (e.g., typed on a page), it is entitled to copyright protection. The author of unpublished manuscript owns the copyright and is entitled to the same rights as an author of a published work. As such, the reviewer may not engage in the circulation, quotation, citation, or reference of the unpublished manuscript, nor may he/she uses the information contained within the unpublished manuscript to further his/her works without explicit permission from the author. Before sharing the unpublished manuscript with any other person, such as a colleague or student, a reviewer must receive permission from the Editor or Section Editor. It is not acceptable to share the manuscript with students for educational purposes. Reviewer is expected to delete/destroy copies of the manuscript upon completion of the review. An exception to this rule allows the reviewer to retain one copy of the manuscript until the reviewer has received a copy of the decision letter and other reviews of the manuscript from the Editor or Section Editor. Once these materials are reviewed, the reviewer must delete/destroy any remaining copies of the manuscript.

JTSC journal operates according to the double-blind peer review model, and so the respective identities of the author and reviewer remain hidden. To help preserve the integrity of this process, please do not reveal any identity within the text of the review.

The reviewer is responsible for critiquing by reading and evaluating manuscripts in the field of expertise, then giving constructive advice and honest feedback to the author of the article submitted. Reviewer, discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the article, how to increase the strength, quality of the paper, evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the manuscript.

Before reviewing, please note the following:

• Is the article requested to be reviewed under reviewer expertise?

If the reviewer receives a script that covers the topics that are not appropriate areas of his/her expertise, please notify the Editor or Section Editor as soon as possible. Please recommend an alternative reviewer.

• Does the reviewer have the time to review this paper?

The review process must be completed within two weeks. If the reviewer agrees and requires a more extended period, notify the Editor as soon as possible, or suggest an alternative reviewer.

• Is there any potential conflict of interest?

Meanwhile, conflicts of interest will not disqualify the reviewer as a reviewer, disclose all conflicts of interest to the Editor before reviewing. Examples of conflicts of interest include recent collaborations, faculty colleagues, students, financial gain stemming from the acceptation or rejection of the manuscript. If a conflict of interest appears to exist, the manuscript will be reassigned, and the reviewer should immediately delete/destroy all copies of the manuscript.

Roles of the Reviewer

JTSC reviewer fulfills two integral roles within the scientific peer-review process: gatekeeper and consultant. As a gatekeeper, a reviewer is tasked with submitting a recommendation to the Editor Section Editor regarding the acceptance, rejection, or revision and resubmission of the manuscript to the authors. The importance of this role should not be underestimated, as published articles within Jtsc become permanent works within the scientific literature and ultimately influence the work of future readers. Reviewer is encouraged to exercise conscientiousness with their responsibility in maintaining the integrity of the posterity of published works within the scientific literature.

As a consultant, a reviewer is tasked with submitting a constructive and sufficiently detailed narrative appraisal to the Editor or Section Editor, who is responsible for providing this information to the authors. Despite the inability of Jtsc to publish every article submitted, a reviewer is tasked with providing thorough feedback to authors regardless of a manuscript’s acceptance status. This feedback should encourage authors of rejected manuscripts to revise and resubmit their best works, as well as provide authors of accepted manuscripts with direction for future manuscripts.

A reviewer may find it challenging to perform the roles gatekeeper and consultant simultaneously; instead of focusing on one role at a time. Reviewer is encouraged to utilize tactful candor when pointing out errors within a manuscript, maintaining collegial respect for the authors. 

The Differences between Minor and Major Revisions

Minor revisions may more often require the author to make relatively small adjustments to the paper, the type of which that would not take too much more time. These may be to bring the paper more in line with author guidelines with a slightly reduced word count, formatting changes or the labeling of tables or figures; further evidence of an understanding of the extant research literature; or to elaborate a little more on the research findings.

Major revisions might require the author to make more significant improvements, the type of which that may take weeks or even months rather than days. The author may be asked to address flaws in the methodology; collect more data; conduct a more thorough analysis, or even adjust the research question to ensure the paper contributes something truly original to the body of work.

The exact motivations behind an Editor or Section Editor's decision are always unique. Importantly, constructive feedback should be provided by the reviewers so that the author is clear on how to improve their papers.


Does the article say something new and interesting enough to warrant publication? Does it add to the body of knowledge? Is the research question an important one? In order to determine its originality and appropriateness for the journal, it might be helpful to consider the article in the context of the wider published research, using tools such as Web of Science or Scopus. How does it compare to the most highly cited or downloaded papers in the field? If the research has been covered previously, forward any relevant references to the Editor or Section Editor.


If you have reason to believe that an article is a substantial copy of another work, please let the Editor or Section Editor know, citing the previous work in as much detail as possible.


If inaccurate, unsubstantiated or emotive statements are made about organizations or people in a submitted article, please let the Editor or Section Editor know. If it is considered that the article could be potentially libelous, clarification will be sought from the author.


Although it can be very difficult to detect if you suspect the results in an article to be falsified, please raise the matter with the Editor or Section Editor.

Layout and Format

The author must comply fully with the journal’s author guidelines, which include manuscript presentation. If the author has clearly failed to present the article according to these guidelines and the Editor or Section Editor has not already highlighted this in the invitation to review, the reviewer should flag this to the Editor or note this in his or her review. If the paper is particularly original or interesting, the Editor or Section Editor may choose to overlook the formatting issues throughout the peer review process and ask the author to address these only shortly prior to eventual acceptance, but at other times the Editor or Section Editor may ask the author to restructure the paper before progressing it any further.


Does the quality of English make it difficult to understand the author’s argument? If this is the case, you do not need to correct the English but should instead mention this as part of your review. In extreme cases where an interesting or original contribution is undermined by the poor quality of expression, you may bring this to the attention of the Editor or Section Editor who can then advise of sub-editing services.

Structure and Content


Does it clearly describe the article? Does it include the most relevant keywords and demonstrate the significance of the research? Does it make sense?

Structured Abstract

Have all mandatory fields been completed? Does it accurately reflect the content of the article?


Does this describe what the author hoped to achieve and clearly articulate the research question? Has the author provided a summary of the current research literature to provide context? Is it clear how this is being challenged or built upon? Are there any important works that have been omitted?


Does the paper demonstrate an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and cite an appropriate range of literature sources? Is any significant work ignored?


Does the author accurately explain how the data was collected? Is the design suitable for answering the question posed? Does the article outline the procedures followed? If the methods are new, are they explained in detail? Is there sufficient information present for the reader to replicate the research? Was the sampling appropriate? Have the equipment and materials been adequately described? Does the article make it clear what type of data was recorded; has the author been precise in describing measurements?

Results and Discussions

This is where the author should explain what was discovered in the research. Are the results presented clearly? Are the findings consistent with the author’s expectations? Does the article support or contradict previous theories? A reviewer should consider the merits and appropriateness of the author’s analysis.


Are the claims in this section reasonable and supported by the results? Do the conclusions adequately tie together the other elements of the paper? Does the author explain how the research has added to the body of knowledge?

Statistical errors

These are common, and attention should be paid.

Graphics and Tables

Where these are included, please check the content and if possible, make suggestions for improvements. Do the figures and tables inform the reader? Are they an essential part of the story? Do the figures describe the data accurately? Are they presented consistently (e.g., in the same format throughout)?