Peer-review process

The editor-in-chief and scientific secretary will promptly assess the manuscript and will decide if it is likely to meet the requirement of providing a major advance in a particular field and describing a sufficient body of work to support that claim. If so, it will be sent out for peer review. Submitted manuscripts will be assigned to at least two independent reviewers from the field of the topic of the manuscript. The journal editors then together make a decision based on the reviewers' comments. There are several types of decision possible:

  • Accept the manuscript as submitted.
  • Accept it with minor revision.
  • Invite the authors to submit a major revision of the manuscript before a final decision is reached.
  • Reject, typically because it does not fit the criteria outlined above of originality, importance to the field, cross-discipline interest, or sound methodology.

When differences of opinion occur between reviewers and the editor-in-chief weigh all comments and arrive at a balanced decision based on all comments. To assist in this process, the reviewer should provide the editors with as much information as possible. 

When a paper has been revised in response to comments by reviewers or when authors feel their argument has been misconstrued in review, we ask reviewers to offer additional comments on the revised or contested manuscript. We are nevertheless aware that reviewers do not wish to be involved in extended discussions over papers, and we keep such consultations to a minimum while still allowing authors a fair hearing.

Reviewer Selection

Editor-in-chief and Scientific secretary decide on reviewers for a particular manuscript based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and the editor's own knowledge of a reviewer. We regularly confer with potential reviewers before sending them manuscripts to review. Reviewers should bear in mind that even these initial messages or conversations contain confidential information.

Writing the Review

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 best possible review would answer the following questions:

  • Are the main claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.
  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?
  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?
  • Would any other additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?
  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?
  • Who would find this paper of interest? Why?
  • If the paper is considered unsuitable for publication in its present form, does the study itself show sufficient enough potential that the authors should be encouraged to resubmit a revised version?
  • Have the authors provided adequate proof for their claims without overselling them? 
  • Have the authors cited the previous literature appropriately?
  • Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?
  • Do you think this article will have an impact—upon clinicians, researchers, health policymakers, or the broader public? Will it be widely read, disseminated, and cited? Could it help to improve public and/or global health? Will readers find it of interest?
  • Does the article contain any inaccurate information? Are the authors' claims evidence-based?
  • Does this article contain enough new information to warrant publication? Does it take the discussion and debate on this topic in a novel direction? 
  • Are there any specific sections that do not make sense?
  • If tables and figures have been included, do they help the reader, or are they unnecessary? Could they be improved? Do you have suggestions for additional items (summary boxes, graphics etc.)?

Manuscripts should represent a substantial advance in social sciences and humanities or practice within the scope of the journal as noted above in terms of:

  • Originality.
  • 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.

Confidentiality and anonymity

The review process is strictly confidential and should be treated as such by reviewers. Because the author may have chosen to exclude some people from this process, no one not directly involved with the manuscript, including colleagues or other experts in the field, should be consulted by the reviewer unless such consultations have first been discussed with the editor-in-chief.

If you intend to provide a marked up copy of your manuscript as part of your review, you can do so by uploading the file to the review form. However, we 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. Review process is double blinded.

Tiltai encourages anonymous peer-review. As a default, we will not pass a reviewer's name on to the authors along with the comments. We discourage any attempt on the part of authors to discover the identity of any reviewer or to contact this person directly. We encourage the reviewers to adopt the same policy. 

Timely Review

 We request that reviewers respond promptly, usually within 15 days of receipt of a manuscript. If reviewers need more time, we request that they contact us promptly so that we can keep the authors informed and, if necessary, assign alternate reviewers.

Introducing Reviewers' Reports

Tiltai staff do not edit any comments made by reviewers unless the language is deemed inappropriate for professional communication or the comments contain information considered confidential. In their comments to authors, reviewers are encouraged to be honest but not offensive in their language. On the other hand, authors should not confuse frank and perhaps even robust language with unfair criticism.

In the interests of complete transparency we do not allow confidential comments for the editors. Reviewers should therefore assume that all the comments you make will be transmitted to the authors.

Feedback to Reviewers

Reviewers who may have offered an opinion not in accordance with the final decision should not feel that their recommendation was not duly considered or their service not properly appreciated. Experts often disagree, and it is the job of the editorial team to make a final publication decision.