Peer Review Policy

Tudor Journals operates a rigorous, confidential, and double-anonymized peer review process designed to ensure the quality, integrity, impartiality, and academic relevance of scholarly publications hosted on the platform.

This policy applies to all journals hosted by Tudor Journals, unless a specific journal clearly states an additional or more detailed peer review procedure. Each journal is responsible for conducting its editorial process in accordance with its aims and scope, editorial policies, ethical standards, and reviewer guidelines.

Double-Anonymized Peer Review

Tudor Journals supports a double-anonymized peer review model, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are kept confidential during the evaluation process.

Authors must submit an anonymized version of the manuscript that does not contain names, affiliations, acknowledgements, institutional identifiers, or any other information that could reveal their identity. Reviewers receive only the anonymized manuscript and any anonymized supplementary files required for evaluation.

Reviewers are granted access to the manuscript only after accepting the review invitation and confirming that they have no disqualifying conflicts of interest.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submissions undergo an initial editorial screening before being sent for peer review. At this stage, the 

Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or designated editorial team evaluates whether the manuscript:

1. Fits the aims and scope of the journal;
2. Meets the journal’s submission requirements;
3. Presents sufficient originality and academic relevance;
4. Follows ethical and editorial standards;
5. Is appropriately anonymized for double-anonymized review;
6. Demonstrates minimum methodological and scientific quality;
7. Does not show clear evidence of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or serious ethical concern.

Manuscripts that do not meet these requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or rejected before peer review.

Reviewer Selection

Editors select reviewers based on their academic qualifications, subject expertise, methodological knowledge, research experience, and ability to provide an objective and timely evaluation.

Reviewers must have no disqualifying conflicts of interest with the manuscript, authors, institutions, funding sources, or research topic. A reviewer should decline the invitation if they:

1. Cannot provide an impartial evaluation;
2. Do not have sufficient expertise in the subject area;
3. Have a personal, academic, financial, institutional, or professional conflict of interest;
4. Are unable to complete the review within the agreed timeframe;
5. Recognize the authors or believe the double-anonymized process has been compromised.

Review Process

Manuscripts approved in the initial screening are normally sent to at least two independent expert reviewers. Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript according to the journal’s criteria, including originality, relevance, theoretical foundation, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, ethical compliance, quality of analysis, consistency of conclusions, and contribution to the field.

Reviewers should provide constructive, respectful, evidence-based, and academically justified comments. Their role is to assist editors in making editorial decisions and to help authors improve the quality of their work.

Reviewer Recommendations

Reviewers may recommend one of the following editorial outcomes:

1. Accept;
2. Minor Revisions;
3. Major Revisions;
4. Resubmit for Review;
5. Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or designated editor, based on the reviewers’ reports, the journal’s editorial standards, the manuscript’s quality, and the relevance of the contribution.

Editorial Decisions

After receiving the reviewers’ reports, the editor evaluates the comments and issues a decision. Possible decisions include acceptance, request for minor revisions, request for major revisions, resubmission for a new round of review, or rejection.

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised version of the manuscript and a response letter explaining how each reviewer and editor comment was addressed. The revised manuscript may be assessed by the editor or returned to reviewers for further evaluation, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts submitted to journals hosted by Tudor Journals must be treated as confidential documents. Reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not disclose, share, copy, distribute, or use any part of an unpublished manuscript for personal, academic, professional, or commercial advantage.

Reviewers must not discuss the manuscript with third parties unless they have explicit permission from the editor. Unpublished data, arguments, interpretations, images, tables, or findings must not be used before publication.

Timeliness

Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within the timeframe agreed at the time of invitation. If a reviewer is unable to meet the deadline, they should notify the editorial office as soon as possible.

Timely peer review is essential to maintaining an efficient, respectful, and transparent editorial process for authors, editors, reviewers, and readers.

Conflicts of Interest

Reviewers and editors must declare any potential conflict of interest that could affect, or appear to affect, the impartiality of the evaluation or editorial decision.

Conflicts may include financial relationships, institutional connections, academic competition, close personal relationships, recent collaboration, supervisory relationships, or any other circumstance that may compromise objective judgment.

If a conflict of interest is identified, the reviewer or editor must withdraw from the evaluation or decision-making process.

Use of Artificial Intelligence in Peer Review

To protect confidentiality, reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts, supplementary files, review reports, author information, unpublished data, or any confidential editorial material to external artificial intelligence tools or systems that may store, retain, process, or reuse such content.

Peer review reports and editorial decisions must reflect the reviewer’s or editor’s own expert judgment. Artificial intelligence tools must not replace critical reading, scientific evaluation, ethical analysis, or editorial responsibility.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by contacting the editorial office and submitting a clear, substantive, and evidence-based justification. Appeals must identify specific concerns regarding the editorial process, reviewer comments, factual errors, or possible misunderstandings.

Appeals are evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated editor. When necessary, additional editorial consultation or independent review may be requested. The outcome of the appeal may uphold the original decision, request further review, or allow resubmission.

Appeals based only on disagreement with the editorial judgment, without substantive evidence, may not be considered.

Final Responsibility

The final decision on any manuscript rests with the Editor-in-Chief, Section Editor, or designated editorial authority of the journal. Tudor Journals provides the editorial-management infrastructure, but each journal remains responsible for maintaining the quality, independence, integrity, and transparency of its peer review process.

Commitment to Quality and Integrity

Tudor Journals is committed to supporting fair, confidential, timely, and academically rigorous peer review. The platform is designed to help journals maintain structured editorial workflows, protect reviewer and author confidentiality, document editorial decisions, and strengthen trust in the scholarly record.