Peer Review Process
Terratmosphera operates a rigorous editorial screening and peer review process designed to ensure that published articles meet high standards of originality, scientific quality, relevance, and ethical integrity.
Editorial Structure
The editorial structure of Terratmosphera consists of the Editor-in-Chief, the Deputy Editor-in-Chief, and Associate Editors. In addition, the journal is supported administratively by a Turnitin Manager and an Editorial Assistant. These supporting officers assist with plagiarism screening and editorial workflow management but do not make independent academic editorial decisions.
Initial Editorial Assessment
Upon submission, each manuscript is first assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or the Deputy Editor-in-Chief to determine whether it falls within the scope of the journal and meets the basic standards for consideration. At this stage, manuscripts that are clearly out of scope or unsuitable for the journal may be rejected without external review.
Where a manuscript is considered potentially suitable, the Editor-in-Chief may assign it to the Turnitin Manager for plagiarism screening. The similarity report is then made available to the editorial office to support the preliminary decision on whether the manuscript should proceed further in the review process.
Plagiarism Screening and Editorial Processing
The Turnitin Manager conducts the plagiarism screening and returns the similarity report to the editorial office. Manuscripts with unacceptable similarity levels, serious ethical concerns, or clear technical deficiencies may be rejected at this stage.
Where the manuscript passes the preliminary screening, the Editor-in-Chief or Deputy Editor-in-Chief assigns it to an Associate Editor in the relevant subject area for further evaluation.
Associate Editor Assessment
The assigned Associate Editor evaluates the manuscript for scientific soundness, originality, relevance, clarity, and compliance with the journal’s author guidelines. The Associate Editor determines whether the manuscript is suitable for external peer review.
The journal reserves the right to reject a manuscript at this stage if it does not meet the scholarly or editorial standards of Terratmosphera.
Peer Review
Manuscripts that successfully pass the editorial screening stage are sent for external peer review. Terratmosphera uses a single-blind peer review process, in which the identities of reviewers are not disclosed to the authors unless a reviewer expressly agrees to reveal their identity.
Each submission is ordinarily reviewed by at least two independent experts in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript on the basis of originality, scientific merit, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal, and validity of the conclusions.
Based on the reviewers’ reports and the editor’s assessment, the manuscript may be:
- accepted,
- accepted subject to minor revision,
- returned for major revision, or
- rejected.
A manuscript may also be rejected if the reviewers identify substantial weaknesses, lack of novelty, inadequate technical quality, or concerns about the reliability of the findings.
Revised Manuscripts
When authors are invited to revise their manuscript, they must submit a revised version together with a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments. The revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers for further assessment, or the handling editor may evaluate the revisions directly, depending on the nature and extent of the changes.
A revised manuscript may be accepted, returned for further revision, or rejected if the concerns raised during peer review have not been adequately addressed.
Final Decision
The final decision on a manuscript rests with the journal’s editorial leadership, based on the recommendations of the reviewers and the assessment of the handling editor. Manuscripts may be rejected at any stage if they are found to be out of scope, insufficiently original, scientifically weak, ethically problematic, technically unreliable, or non-compliant with the journal’s standards.
In some cases, a manuscript may also be declined where repeated efforts to secure suitable reviewers are unsuccessful, suggesting that the work may not be well aligned with the journal’s audience or disciplinary focus.
Appeal
Authors may appeal a rejection decision by contacting the editorial office within 30 days of the decision notification.
Email: [email protected]
Any appeal must include a clear and concise explanation of why the manuscript should be reconsidered, together with a point-by-point response to the issues raised by the editors and/or reviewers. Where applicable, the appeal should also include a revised manuscript showing substantive improvements. Appeals are considered carefully, but submission of an appeal does not guarantee reconsideration or reversal of the original decision.
