Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the editorial office. The purpose of this stage is to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for further consideration and whether it meets the journal's basic requirements.

The editorial team considers:

• Relevance to the journal's Aims and Scope;
• Compliance with submission guidelines, formatting requirements, and ethical compliance;
• Similarity Check (iThenticate) , including potential plagiarism, duplicate or redundant publication;
• Completeness of submission materials and required declarations;
• Basic academic quality, originality, and suitability for peer review.

Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's basic requirements or fall outside its scope may be returned to the authors for appropriate revision or declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts that pass the initial editorial assessment are normally sent to at least two independent and qualified reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject area.

Depending on the manuscript, reviewer expertise may include:

Reviewers are selected according to their relevant expertise and independence. Potential conflicts of interest are considered before reviewer assignment, and reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript and the review process.

TSCR uses a double-blind peer review model. Where practicable, the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed during the review process.

Reviewers are expected to provide an independent and constructive assessment of the manuscript. Their evaluation should be based on the scholarly content of the submission rather than on the authors' identity, institutional affiliation, geographic location, or other unrelated characteristics.

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts according to the nature and methodology of the research. Key considerations may include:

Reviewers provide written comments that identify the manuscript's strengths, limitations, methodological concerns, and areas requiring clarification or improvement.

Reviewers may provide recommendations such as:

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor after considering the reviewers' comments, the manuscript, and other relevant editorial considerations.

The editor considers the reviewer reports together with the manuscript’s academic quality, relevance, originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and suitability for the journal.

Authors are informed of the editorial decision and, where applicable, receive the relevant reviewer comments. Reviewer identities remain confidential in accordance with the journal’s double-blind review policy.

Editorial decisions may include acceptance, a request for minor or major revision, or rejection.

When revisions are requested, authors should carefully address the reviewers' and editor's comments and provide a point-by-point response explaining how each substantive issue has been addressed.

The revised manuscript may be evaluated by the original reviewers, additional reviewers, or the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Further rounds of revision and re-evaluation may be requested when necessary before a final editorial decision is reached.

Authors may request reconsideration of an editorial decision when they believe that a significant factual error, methodological misunderstanding, procedural issue, or other substantive concern may have affected the decision.

An appeal should clearly explain the grounds for reconsideration and address the relevant editorial or reviewer comments with specific evidence or clarification. Appeals are considered by the editorial team in accordance with the journal's editorial policies.

Submitting an appeal does not guarantee that the original decision will be changed.

Once a manuscript is accepted, it enters the copyediting, proofreading, and production phase. This stage may include:

• Language editing and formatting for consistency with the journal's style;
• Typesetting and layout preparation;
• Author proofreading and correction of production errors;
• Final preparation and scheduling for publication.

Authors remain responsible for reviewing proofs and notifying the editorial office of any necessary corrections. Changes at this stage should normally be limited to corrections necessary to ensure the accuracy, clarity, and integrity of the published article.

Following publication, each article is assigned a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and made openly accessible through the journal's online platform in accordance with the journal's open-access publishing model.

Published articles remain part of the scholarly record and are maintained for long-term accessibility and preservation in accordance with applicable publishing and digital preservation practices.

Post-publication concerns, including substantive errors or issues affecting the integrity of the published record, may be addressed through appropriate corrections, retractions, or other editorial notices in accordance with the journal's publishing ethics policies.