Manuscript Review Procedure

(Tsing Hua Journal of Educational Research)

1. Tsing Hua Journal of Educational Research is an academic publication. In order to enhance academic standards and the quality of published papers, all submitted manuscripts are subject to the following peer-review procedures:
2. All manuscripts are to undergo four review stages: initial evaluation, first round review, external review, and editor review.
3. Initial evaluation: The assistant editor conducts an initial screening of the received manuscript, confirms basic information about the contributor(s), checks whether the word count, format, and style are consistent with the Journal’s requirements, and asks for any supplemental documents required, suggesting revisions or rejecting the manuscript accordingly.
4. First round review: The editor-in-chief reviews the relevance of the manuscript according to the chosen topic of the journal and asks the appointed editor to determine whether the manuscript should be forwarded for external review due to the innovative or practical value of the content, and whether all academic ethics were respected. The appointed editor should recommend three to five external reviewers to the editor-in-chief based on their fields of specialty, and determine whether there could be a conflict of interest between the reviewers and the author(s).
5. External review: The editor-in-chief selects outside reviewers according to the list provided by the appointed editor for anonymous peer-review. In principle, each article is reviewed by two reviewers, however, an additional one to two reviewers may be assigned when necessary. There are four feedback responses: (1) suggest to accept; (2) suggest to accept after minor revision (approval from original reviewer not needed); (3) major revision and resubmission required, subject to approval of original reviewers; and (4) suggest to reject. Only comments and suggestions in the “Review Comment Form” are forwarded to the author(s); the rest of the comments serve as a reference for the reviewing editor. The following table exhibits the standard follow-up procedures based on the results of the external review:

1. If the feedback is “suggest to accept” or “suggest to accept after minor revision,” the manuscript and review comments will be sent to the appointed editors, editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief for further confirmation before a manuscript acceptance letter is issued to the author(s).
2. If the feedback response is “suggest to reject,” the manuscript and review comments will be sent to the appointed editors, editor-in-chief, and deputy editor-in-chief for further confirmation before a rejection letter is issued to the author(s).
3. If the feedback response is “suggest review by a third reviewer,” the editorial board will invite a third reviewer to conduct an anonymous review. Next, the appointed editor will examine the comments of the three reviewers, the author(s)’ responses and the revised manuscript, and determine whether the manuscript should be defined as “suggest to accept,” “suggest to accept after minor revision,” or “suggest to reject.” Then, the corresponding documents will be forwarded to the editor-in-chief and deputy editor-in-chief for final confirmation before moving on to the next step in the procedure accordingly.
4. If the feedback response is “major revision and resubmission required, subject to approval of original reviewers,” a letter will be sent to the author(s) by the editorial board, requesting revision within three weeks and a re-submission of the revised manuscript alongside the “Response to Review Comment Form,” sent to the editorial board. The board will then forward the revised documents and response to the original reviewer(s) for approval. In case a substantial revision is required and the author(s) thereby needs more time, a written request should be submitted to the editorial board stating the reasons for the late re-submission. Failure to re-submit the revised manuscript within the set deadline will be deemed as a withdrawal of the submission.

6. Editor review: In the event that a manuscript requires further discussion regarding whether it should be accepted or rejected, an editorial board meeting will be convened for a final decision based on the quality of the article, the review comments, and author(s)’ responses.
7. The colloquium or review articles will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief, deputy editor-in-chief and appointed editor; however, an external review may be assigned when necessary.
8. In the event that the contributors wish to withdraw a submission, a written request must be submitted to the editorial board stating the reason for withdrawal. If a withdrawal request is submitted during the external review or editor review stage, the author(s) will be banned from publication for two years.
9. The review of each manuscript is subject to a review fee, according to the relevant provisions of the university.
10. Any revisions of this regulation should be approved by the editorial board meeting.