To ensure the academic quality of the manuscripts published in the TNN, the editorial board has established the following peer review system (see details in Figure 1) in accordance with the editorial workflow and responsibility system of this journal:

(1) Manuscripts are subject to a “Triple steps-review” system, which includes initial review, secondary review (re-review or second review), and final review (third review). After the editorial department receives a manuscript, it is registered by an assistant editor and then reviewed by the responsible editor for the initial review; manuscripts that pass the initial review are re-reviewed by the editorial director and then sent for peer review and evaluation (external review), and this journal implements an anonymous peer review system. After the external review, the manuscripts enter the final review, where the responsible editor selects the best ones based on the review comments and then submits them to the editor-in-chief for final decision.

(2) The editorial department should strictly review the quality of manuscripts and maintain strict control. The names, affiliations, and confidential review comments of reviewers should be kept strictly confidential. When reviewers have different opinions on a manuscript, they should be handled according to the circumstances. Opinions that differ in academic viewpoints generally should not affect the publication of the manuscript. Particularly for manuscripts with unique insights, as long as the arguments are clear, the data is reliable, and the reasoning is correct, they should be published.

(3) In the case of certain review comments, if the authors have different opinions and provide valid reasons, their opinions should be respected and handled appropriately.

(4) Manuscripts that do not conform to the nature and requirements of this journal, or those deemed not to have reached the standard for publication after review, will be returned by the editorial department.

(5) During manuscript submission, This journal will check for plagiarism, and any manuscript found to be academically dishonest will be strictly returned.

 

Figure 1 The review process