Guidelines to make process as collegial and constructive as possible

Guidelines for Reviewers

At TXT we value the work done by peer reviewers in the academic community, who provide an essential service to the process of publication excellence, driving research within their fields of expertise and play an important role in ensuring the integrity of the scholarly record. The following procedures and policies provide essential information for researchers who agree to assist us by assessing papers submitted to TXT. We also ask reviewers to review our Editorial & Publishing Policies.


Our Approach to Peer Review

TXT publishes articles that are technically sound, that are worthy of inclusion in the scholarly record, and that further research and discourse in the relevant field of study. All manuscripts submitted to the Journal are first evaluated on the basis of scientific quality, originality, appropriateness, contribution to the field, and style. Our Editors have adopted an inclusive posture within their respective disciplines, with the goal to promote interdisciplinary collaboration and exchange. We do not attempt to predict a submission’s value to the field over time, as that is best left to the community of researchers and readers. Article-level metrics of citation, usage, and qualified comment are now available to track impact over time.

We are committed to making the review process as collegial and constructive as possible and respond in a reasonable time-frame. We ask our reviewers to provide frank and direct assessments, but to avoid comments that are sharp or offensive and behave responsibly and ethically.


We understand that our reviewers are busy so it won’t always be possible for invitations to be accepted. Please let us know as soon as possible if they need to refuse a review or if a problem arises after the invitation has been accepted. We are committed to providing authors with a timely review and publication process, which requires a rapid response from editors and reviewers alike. If you agree to review an article, we ask that you return your review within a short timeframe, typically within two (2) weeks of receiving a manuscript, in order to maintain a rapid review schedule.

Using the Reviewer Form

Following the exemplary practice of PLoS One, you will be asked to complete a peer-review form, to focus and streamline the review process. The form consists of three sections:

1. Statement of Competing Interests (required)

Reviewers must declare any potential or perceived competing interests that may influence your review.Please do so as discretely and as quickly as possible.

2. Comments to the Author(s) (required)

This section includes questions about whether the submission meets TXT’s publication criteria. Answers to these questions are required. You also have the option to raise any additional issues in a free-text response at the end of the form. The answers to all questions in this section will be included in the decision letter to the author.
The specific questions in this section focus on the following:

  • Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?
  • Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?
  • Does the manuscript adhere to standards in this field for data availability?
  • Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

For each of these questions, you must choose between a selection of answer choices (e.g., Yes, No, I don’t know, N/A). If you have further feedback about a specific item, you may include it in the

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional)

3. Confidential Comments to the Editor (optional) In this section, you may share any comments with the Associate Editor that you do not wish to share with the author. This section is optional, and we strongly encourage reviewers to include all relevant information regarding their evaluation of the scientific content of the manuscript in the “Comments to the Author” section. However, we understand that some feedback that may be helpful to the Associate Editor may not be appropriate to share with the authors.

This section also includes two optional questions about whether the submission should be highlighted in TXT on its organizational website. These answers will not play any role in the editorial decision-making process and will not be shared with the authors.

4. Making a Decision

When making a final recommendation on the manuscript, TXT may ask you to choose one of the following options:

  • Publish As Is. The article fulfils all of the requirements listed above and is ready for publication.
  • Major Revision. The article has significant deficiencies in content and grammar. The author’s claims are not backed up by facts or the information included is too broad. The article does not adhere to TXT style.
  • Minor Revision. The article contains a small number of easily correctable errors including grammar, missing ref¬erences, and minor content clarification.
  • Not Suitable for Publication. The article is not suitable for publication. It does not offer any value to the readers of TXT or its subject is so thoroughly incoher¬ent that it does not merit an opportunity for a revision. Reviewers should make every effort to provide com¬ments that will allow authors the opportunity to revise their manuscripts. Only those manuscripts that offer no relevance or value should be rejected.
  • Reject & Resubmit. The article in its current form is not suitable for publication and requires significant rewrites for more than 50% of the manuscript. However, it does contain value and after taking into consideration the reviewer’s comments would be worthy of an evaluation for future publication upon the author’s resubmission of the manuscript. If you are recommending an article for publication, include why you feel it is appropriate for publication. Detailed reviewer input on articles that have been deemed “Publish As Is” are valuable in helping the editor identify which topics are particu¬larly relevant to students. Do not reject essays because you may disagree with the opinion expressed. Judge the article on the relevance of the topic and how well the author makes his/her case. If you are recommending a revision, provide alternative solutions for how the author might revise his/her article.

Confidentiality & Anonymity

After the manuscript is submitted, it is reviewed by a Section Editor or a member of the Editorial Board. If the manuscript passes the Editorial review, it is sent to external reviewers for peer review. Our review process is confidential and must be treated as such by all individuals involved in the submission and review process: authors, editors, production assistants, external reviewers, and staff.

Based on the reviewer’s comments the assigned Editor will take the final decision about the acceptance or rejection of the manuscript. The Editor may decide to: 1) accept the manuscript with major or minor revision, 2) invite authors to resubmit the manuscript after revisions while the final decision is kept pending, or 3) reject the manuscript. Editor decision in all cases will be based on the arguments of the reviewers and authors.

External reviewers should not contact anyone directly involved in the review process without first receiving approval from the Associate Editor managing the review process, and review reports should not be published (including by posting to the Internet) or publicized without permission.

Clarity of Language Usage

To keep costs as low as possible, TXT articles are not subject to detailed copyediting. We therefore rely on reviewers to pay particular attention to the clarity of English language usage and consistency of reference style, and to point out areas in the text that need attention when completing the review form.

Reviewer Rewards

  • We offer reviewers a 20% discount on all publication charge.
  • The reviewers will also receive the table of contents for every volume of TXT Journals in their email before the articles are published online.
  • As a further token of encouragements to the reviewers, we will acknowledge the reviewers contribution in the annual statement published in TXT Journals.
  • Be a part of our growing international network of reviewers who are all experts in their fields of specialization. Our reviewers are from all over the world including UK, USA, Europe, Australia, France, Germany, India, China, Japan

Thank You

We are grateful for the support of all of our referees in helping authors to enhance and develop their papers and adding to the integrity of publishing process.

If you can’t find the information you need here or if you have any feedback on the TXT Reviewer Gateway, please get in touch with us:

TXT strongly recommends that reviewers also adhere to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.