Peer Review Policy

The practice of peer review is to ensure that a high-quality manuscript is published. It is an objective process at the heart of good scholarly publishing and is carried out in all reputable scientific journals. Our referees, therefore play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of JTEC.

All manuscripts submitted for publication are subjected to a double-blind peer review process, where the identities of both reviewers and authors remain undisclosed. Generally, a minimum of two external reviewers evaluate the manuscripts, with the possibility of seeking additional opinions if deemed necessary. Reviewers are required to adhere to JTEC's Publication Ethics & Malpractice guidelines, along with the referenced documents, and are advised to familiarize themselves with COPE's ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. Administrators of the peer review process should be vigilant for indications of misconduct and promptly communicate any concerns to the editorial office.


Peer Review Process

The review process begins with the Managing Editor screening manuscripts for completeness and adherence to the Submission Guidelines. Authors may be asked to address any issues before the manuscripts proceed to the Editors’ evaluation.

The Editor-in-Chief evaluate submissions to determine their suitability for further review based on their alignment with the journal's scope, publishing standards, and relevance to the policy community.

If deemed appropriate by the Editor-in-Chief, manuscripts are then assigned to Section Editor with relevant subject expertise. The Section Editor assesses the manuscript and determines whether it should advance to the peer review stage. If so, they select reviewers and oversee the review process.

Following the Section Editor's evaluation, manuscripts progress to peer review, typically conducted by at least two external reviewers in the field. Reviewer selection considers both the manuscript's subject matter and research methods. Additional input from policy experts (Editorial Advisory Board) may also be solicited.

Based on the reviewer feedback, Section Editors recommend the manuscript's decision to the Editor-in-Chief.

The Editor-in-Chief may seek assistance from additional editors or reviewers before reaching a final decision.


Competing interests

Should reviewers become aware of any competing interests that could potentially influence their review report, they are urged to promptly inform the editors and abstain from further review. Competing interests arise when outside factors, such as financial ties, intellectual affiliations, personal relationships, or competitive situations may influence professional judgments. To uphold standards of objectivity and trustworthiness, reviewers are requested to disclose any potential competing interests.


Reviewers and editors must maintain confidentiality regarding submission content, including abstracts, ideas, and research data. Such information should not be disclosed to third parties or utilized for personal purposes. Authors and reviewers are reminded to exercise caution during the double-blind peer-review process to avoid revealing their identities.


We request reviewers to submit their review reports promptly to ensure a smooth publication process for all involved. In the event that reviewers are unable to meet the deadline, we encourage them to promptly notify the editorial office and request an extension.


It is important to note that the journal may take up to approximately 4 months to process the review, acknowledgement and publication of the manuscript submitted by the authors. In some cases, longer times may be unavoidable depending on feedback from reviewers, author response times to revisions, and the number of revisions.