Peer-review process

Tabula Rasa journal applies a double-blind peer-review system, that is, neither the author nor the reviewer knows each other’s identity.

Once manuscripts are submitted, the journal’s editor and the editorial committee check the manuscript is pertinent, quality, and its compliance with formal criteria stated in the authors’ guidelines. Papers that pass this first stage successfully shall be sent to suitable peers selected by the editor and the editorial committee to conduct an academic assessment.

The academic peers receive an invitation to review; as they accept it, they will be sent the manuscript for review, along with the corresponding form to record their remarks supporting their decision to publish or decline the manuscript.

The reviewers will be given one month to assess a manuscript; in case they need to extend that deadline, they should address the editor. By the deadline, the reviewers shall submit their comments and a clear recommendation to the editor on publishing on Tabula Rasa or declining the submission under review.

Whether the submission is accepted or rejected, the editor will send the author the recommendation and remarks on his/her manuscript without disclosing the reviewer’s identity. In case the recommendation is publishable, the author should send back the editor a revised version of his/her manuscript within 15 days, incorporating the reviewers’ remarks,
along with a letter addressed to Tabula Rasa journal, authorizing his/her manuscript to be published, and stating that their manuscript has not been previously published or is under review with another journal, and that he/she is the legitimate author of the manuscript to be published.

Reviewers

• Peer-reviewers are appointed by the editor along with the editorial committee. They
• shall be external to the publishing entity and preferably be experts on the subject to be
• reviewed.
• The reviewers shall be thorough in reviewing manuscripts.
• They shall fill in the review forms sent to them by the journal.
• The reviewers shall inform the Editor, should there be any potential conflict of interest, so that the Editor is able to look for another reviewer and move forward with the process.
• The reviewers shall explain clearly their views on the manuscript proposed to them.
• They shall point out any clear or suspected plagiarism (or self-plagiarism) and/or forging or undue handling of data.
• In tandem with this, we encourage our authors to report on any potential conflict of interest in the treatment of their topics, and —in the case of collectively-written papers— to clearly specify each author’s contribution to the work submitted, and to expressly state they take upon themselves all the responsibility on the published product

Best practice publishing ethics policy

Tabula Rasa adheres to the ethical guidelines in scholarly publishing as stated by Elsevier and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics).
Accordingly, we advise our authors to abide by the following rules of thumb:

• Take strict care of third parties’ contributions in their manuscripts, making proper use of citations, paraphrase or references, clearly indicating their source.
• Likewise, we ask you to limit your self-citation up to 5 per cent of your text, and, when necessary, to opt for primary sources.
• Previous research data shall be cited with the utmost transparency. Also, we plainly reject the practice of redundant publication, provided that scholarly publications rely on public funds, therefore, for the sake of financial and scholarly fairness, we deemed this as a practice to be avoided.
• In tandem with this, we encourage our authors to report on any potential conflict of
• interest in the treatment of their topics, and —in the case of collectively-written
• papers— to clearly specify each author’s contribution to the work submitted, and to
• expressly state they take upon themselves all the responsibility on the published
• product.

Of particular concern to the editorial team, authors, and reviewers’ duties, we will consider
the following:

Editorial Team

• The editorial team shall be in charge of receiving submissions (in the Editor’s figure), and shall ensure an efficient and transparent process of reviewing, copyediting, and publication.
• The editorial team will make decisions concerning manuscript acceptance or dismissal, following the basic criteria of scientific journals regarding quality and pertinence of the works submitted, and the necessary ethical guidelines for scholarly publication.
• The editorial team shall commission reviews to the more suitable peer reviewers, considering their scholarly background and their expertise on a particular field.
• The editorial shall ensure anonymity for authors and peers during the review process, and at the same time they shall ensure the reviewers anonymity after publication.
• The editorial team shall not consider peer reviewers proposed by authors, but they shall take into account the request of an author not to look to given peers for reviewing his/her manuscript.
• All of the manuscripts by members of the Editorial team or the Editor shall be reviewed
• by scholars outside the journal.

Authors

As stated somewhere else on the journals’ website, manuscripts submitted by authors shall be original, not previously published in other journals, books, blogs, webpages, or other publishing media (in print or online), and shall not have been submitted simultaneously for review at other journals or publishing houses.

Each and any author shall state in written that the content of his/her manuscript is a product of his/her own, and has not been authored by someone else. The author shall be respectful of other authors or entities’ copyright and patrimonial property. That said, he/she will make clear through a letter undersigned, submitted to the journal, that he/she states he/she is the legitimate author and respects intellectual and property rights other individuals or entities may hold on material used.

Reviewers

• The reviewers shall be thorough in reviewing manuscripts.
• They shall fill in the review forms sent to them by the journal.
• The reviewers shall inform the Editor, should there be any potential conflict of interest, so that the Editor is able to look for another reviewer and move forward with the process.
• The reviewers shall explain clearly their views on the manuscript proposed to them.
• They shall point out any clear or suspected plagiarism (or self-plagiarism) and/or forging or undue handling of data.

In tandem with this, we encourage our authors to report on any potential conflict of interest in the treatment of their topics, and —in the case of collectively-written papers— to clearly specify each author’s contribution to the work submitted, and to expressly state they take upon themselves all the responsibility on the published product.

Download