The practice of peer review is intended to ensure that only good science is published. As an objective method of guaranteeing excellence in scholarly publishing, it has been adopted by all reputable scientific journals. Our referees play a vital role in maintaining the high standards of the Journal, which is why all incoming manuscripts are peer reviewed following the procedure outlined below.

Initial manuscript evaluation
One of the reviewers first evaluates all submitted manuscripts. It is rare, but it is possible for an exceptional manuscript to be accepted at this stage. Manuscripts rejected at this stage are insufficiently original, have serious scientific flaws, have poor grammar or English language, or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Those that meet the minimum criteria are normally passed on to at least two expert referees for reviewing.

Authors of manuscripts rejected at this stage will usually be informed within one week of receipt.

Type of peer review
The Journal employs ‘double blind’ reviewing, in which the reviewers remain anonymous to the author(s) throughout and following the refereeing process, whilst the identity of the author(s) is likewise unknown to the reviewers.

Language correction is not part of the peer review process, but referees are encouraged to suggest corrections of language and style to the manuscript. In the final round, the handling Editor will check matters of linguistic and stylistic correctness, and may suggest or apply corrections at this point. In rare cases, the manuscript may be returned to the author(s) for a full linguistic and stylistic revision.

Time of the review process
The time required for the review process is dependent on the response of the editors. For the Journal, the typical time for the first round of the editing process is approximately 2 weeks, with a maximum of two months. Should the editors’ reports contradict one another or a report is unnecessarily delayed, a further expert opinion may be sought. In the rare cases when it is extremely difficult to find a second referee to review the manuscript, whilst the one referee’s extant report has thoroughly convinced the handling Editor, a decision to accept, reject or ask the author for a revision may be made, at the handling Editor’s discretion, on the basis of only one referee report. The handling Editor’s decision will be sent to the author with the reviewer’s recommendations, usually including the latter’s verbatim comments. As a rule, revised manuscripts are sent to the initial referees for checking; these may then request further revision.

Final report
A final decision to accept or reject the manuscript will be sent to the author along with the recommendations made by the referees, including (if applicable) the latter’s verbatim comments.

The Chief Editor's decision is final Referees advise the Chief Editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.

Note on refereeing of Special issues and the like
Special issues and/or conference proceedings may have different peer review procedures involving, for example, Guest Editors, conference organizers, or scientific committees, who all report to the Special Issues Editor and ultimately, the Chief Editor. Authors contributing to these projects may receive full details of the peer review process on request from the editorial office (pub@tuculart.eu)

Note:
The Journal performs closed peer review, so the review texts can only be accessed by the Journal management and the author of the article.