Tiltai

The purpose of the review is to provide the journal editors with an expert opinion regarding the quality of the manuscript under consideration, and should also supply authors with explicit feedback on how to improve their papers so that they will be acceptable for publication in TILTAI. The review must answer the following questions:

1. If Title of the publication appropriate?
2. If the publication is relevant and original?
3. If formulation of the scientific problem, aim and objectives are appropriate?
4. If analysis of the scientific problem is appropriate?
5. If presentation and justification of the research methodology and methods appropriate?
6. If analysis of the research data is appropriate?
7. If development of the discussion is appropriate?
8. If illustrative materials of the text (pictures, figures, tables, charts etc.) are appropriate?
9. If connections between conclusions and scientific problem, aims and research results are appropriate?
10. If citations and list of references are appropriate?
11. If language is correct?
12. If quality of summary is appropriate?
13. If accuracy of the abstract is appropriate?
14. Is the level of the foreign language appropriate?
15. Is accuracy of the key words and terminology appropriate?
16. Is there any potential ethical conflict?
17. Are there any potential financial interests’ conflict?

The reviewers can write a comment noting if manuscript represent a substantial advance in social sciences and humanities or practice within the scope of the journal as noted above in terms of:

• Importance to researchers or practitioners in the field.
• Interest for researchers or practitioners outside the field.
• Rigorous methodology with substantial evidence for its conclusions.
• Conducted according to the highest ethical standards.

The reviewer does not provide a marked up copy of a manuscript as part of review. All comments and notes must be done in the file to the review form. However, scientific journal TILTAI prefer to have these marked-up files in Word format rather than PDF to ensure that the comments and annotations can be easily forwarded to the author. Please remember to anonymize your comments.

Timely Review

The review should provide a review promptly, usually within 15 days of receipt of a manuscript as a minimum and not exceeding 30 days as maximum. In case reviewers need more time, scientific journal TILTAI should be requested to prolong time in order to keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.

Introducing Reviewers' Reports

Editorial Office of scientific journal TILTAI do not edit any comments made by reviewers unless the language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication or the comments contain information considered confidential. Reviewers should therefore assume that all the comments are made they are transmitted to the authors.

Duties of reviewers

Scientific journal TILTAI relies on diligent, unbiased and confidential reviews to ensure the quality of the papers they publish. Our reviewers play a crucial role, not only by providing authors with a fair assessment of their manuscript, but also by helping to maintain the integrity and quality of the journal.

By accepting the invitation to review a manuscript, reviewers agree to become consultants to the journal and to follow its specific scope and policies.

Invited reviewers are expected to:

• Consider whether they have the expertise the editors are looking for to carry out a proper assessment before agreeing to review a manuscript;
• Consider the amount of time to complete the review in accordance with the journal’s deadline and respond to an invitation to peer review within a reasonable time-frame and without intentional delay;
• Consider conflicts of interest even if editors saw no such conflicts and declare them to editors;
• Be constructive, avoid bias, provide helpful guidance to authors, suggest improvements, focus on the paper and not on its authors;
• Avoid disclosing their identity in the comments to authors;
• Avoid passing the manuscript on to someone else to review, and remain strictly confidential about the manuscript when seeking advice from any other person;
• Avoid using information about the manuscript or review to anyone’s advantage or disadvantage, including their own;
• Avoid offering editorial assistance;
• Delete any copies and destroy any printed files of the manuscript when the review is finished to ensure confidentiality;
• Remain confidential about their role in the peer-review process, when the paper is published.

If, despite the double-blind character of the review process, the reviewer suspects the identity of the author anyway, he/she is asked to remain strictly confidential, to not contact the suspected authors about their paper, to not discuss it with the suspected authors, to not mention their suspicions in the review, and to remain blind to the suspected authors to reduce bias.