Steps in the Peer Review Process

Author Submits Article

The corresponding or submitting author submits the paper to J-TICH via the online system by clicking on Make a Submission.

Editorial Assessment

J-TICH checks the paper against its writing guidelines for various submission types and makes sure it includes all the required sections and that it has been written in the correct format and style.

The journal team then checks that the paper fits with the journal’s aims and is sufficiently original and interesting to the journal’s audience. If not, the paper may be rejected without being reviewed any further.

Invitation to Reviewer(s)

At this stage, invitations are sent to individuals identified as appropriate reviewers for the paper with the option to accept or decline.  When an invitation is received, it is the reviewer’s responsibility to know and follow the ethical guidelines for peer review. 

After the invitation is accepted, the paper will be sent to the reviewer for assessment.

If a reviewer is unable to review but thinks a colleague might be interested, they must not forward the invitation, as this impacts the confidentiality of the author(s). Instead, the colleague may be recommended to the Journal Manager so that they can be invited.

Review is Conducted

Reviewers usually set time aside to read the paper several times to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject the paper – or with a request for revision.

Revisions can be flagged as major or minor, depending on how much work is requested to be done on the manuscript. Please take a look at our guide on how to write a peer review report.

Journal Assesses the Review(s)

The Journal Manager considers all the returned reviews before making an overall decision. If the reviews differ widely, the Journal Manager may invite an additional reviewer to give an extra opinion before deciding.

The Decision is Communicated

J-TICH sends a decision to the author(s) to either: accept, reject, or request revisions. Usually, this will be accompanied by the reviewer reports – and further editorial guidance, if revisions are being requested.

At this point, reviewers should also be told the outcome of their review. If the paper was sent back for revision, the reviewers should expect to receive a new version, unless they have opted out of further participation. However, where only minor changes were requested, follow-up review might be done by the Journal Manager.