Editorial Workflow

Last updated: 28 August 2025

This Editorial Workflow describes the operational stages through which manuscripts are processed by journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP. It is intended to help authors, editors, reviewers, and editorial staff understand the status of a submission from initial receipt through peer review, production, publication, and post-publication oversight.

All journals published by TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP operate under the Diamond Open Access model. Authors are not charged submission fees, article processing charges, publication fees, page charges, or mandatory open-access fees.

Published articles are made freely and permanently available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY 4.0). Research manuscripts are normally evaluated through a single-blind peer-review process, in which reviewers know the identities and affiliations of the authors while reviewer identities normally remain confidential.

1. Workflow Overview and Manuscript Statuses

A manuscript may pass through the following standard workflow:

1. Submission received
2. Administrative check
3. Technical check
4. Author corrections required, where applicable
5. Initial editorial assessment
6. Editor assigned
7. Reviewer invitations sent
8. Under peer review
9. Reviews completed
10. Editorial decision pending
11. Minor revision, major revision, acceptance, or rejection
12. Revised manuscript received, where applicable
13. Re-evaluation or second review round
14. Final decision
15. Accepted manuscript transferred to production
16. Copyediting
17. Typesetting
18. Author proofs
19. Final production approval
20. Online publication
21. Indexing, archiving, and metadata distribution
22. Post-publication monitoring

Not every manuscript will pass through every status. A manuscript may be rejected during initial editorial assessment, returned for technical correction, withdrawn by the authors, placed on hold while information is requested, or referred for an ethical or research-integrity review.

The status shown in the manuscript-management system is intended to provide a general indication of progress. A status may remain unchanged while editors, reviewers, authors, or production staff are completing work within that stage.

2. Submission Receipt and Technical Checking

When a manuscript is submitted, the editorial office records the submission and assigns a manuscript identification number. The corresponding author normally receives an acknowledgement confirming that the files have been received.

The initial submission should normally include:

• the complete manuscript in an editable format;
• a title page with author names and affiliations;
• the corresponding author’s contact information;
• an abstract and keywords;
• all tables, figures, captions, and supplementary files;
• a cover letter;
• an author-contribution statement;
• a competing-interests declaration;
• a funding statement;
• a data-availability statement;
• ethical approval and informed-consent information, where applicable;
• a generative AI declaration, where applicable;
• permissions for third-party material; and
• any relevant reporting-guideline checklist.

During the administrative and technical check, editorial staff may assess whether:

• all required files are present and accessible;
• the manuscript is complete and readable;
• author names and affiliations are entered consistently;
• the corresponding author is clearly identified;
• the abstract and keywords are included;
• tables and figures are cited, numbered, and readable;
• supplementary files are clearly labelled;
• ethical, funding, conflict, contribution, data, and AI declarations are present;
• the manuscript generally follows the journal’s formatting requirements;
• citations and references generally follow APA style, 7th edition;
• each in-text citation has a corresponding reference-list entry;
• each reference-list entry is cited in the manuscript;
• DOIs and bibliographic details are sufficiently complete; and
• permissions for copyrighted or third-party material have been supplied where required.

If essential information is missing, the manuscript may receive the status Author Corrections Required, Incomplete Submission, or an equivalent status. The corresponding author will be asked to correct the files before editorial assessment begins.

A manuscript that passes the technical check proceeds to initial editorial assessment. Passing the technical check does not mean that the manuscript has entered external peer review or that it will be accepted.

3. Initial Editorial Assessment and Editor Assignment

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated academic editor conducts an initial assessment to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for the journal.

The assessment normally considers:

• fit with the journal’s aims and scope;
• appropriateness of the article type;
• originality and scholarly significance;
• clarity of the objective, research question, or hypothesis;
• adequacy of the methodology;
• credibility of the results and conclusions;
• ethical and legal compliance;
• quality and completeness of reporting;
• relevance and reliability of the references;
• quality of tables, figures, data, and supplementary material;
• compliance with the journal’s author instructions; and
• overall suitability for external peer review.

A manuscript may be rejected without external peer review when it:

• falls outside the journal’s scope;
• does not make a sufficient scholarly contribution;
• contains fundamental methodological weaknesses;
• does not support its principal claims with adequate evidence;
• contains serious ethical, legal, authorship, data-integrity, or originality concerns;
• substantially duplicates previously published work;
• is incomplete or cannot be evaluated reliably;
• contains promotional, misleading, defamatory, or fabricated material; or
• does not satisfy essential journal requirements.

Where the manuscript is potentially suitable but requires clarification before review, the editor may request:

• missing ethical approval information;
• clarification of authorship or contributions;
• original or unmodified figure files;
• data, code, or statistical information;
• additional declarations;
• correction of incomplete or unverifiable references;
• an explanation of overlapping publications; or
• technical or structural corrections.

Manuscripts approved for peer review are assigned to a handling editor with suitable subject or methodological expertise. Editors must disclose conflicts of interest and recuse themselves when their independence could reasonably be questioned.

Submissions by an editor, editorial-board member, guest editor, or publisher employee are assigned to an independent editor. The submitting individual must not select reviewers, access reviewer identities, participate in confidential discussion, or influence the decision.

4. Reviewer Selection and Single-Blind Peer Review

The handling editor identifies qualified and independent reviewers. Research manuscripts are normally evaluated by at least two reviewers, although the number may vary according to the article type, discipline, complexity, and availability of appropriate expertise.

Reviewer selection is based on:

• relevant subject expertise;
• methodological or statistical competence;
• appropriate publication or professional experience;
• independence from the authors and research;
• absence of disqualifying conflicts of interest;
• ability to provide a fair and constructive evaluation;
• reliability and timeliness; and
• verified identity and affiliation.

Author-suggested reviewers may be considered, but editors independently verify their suitability. The journal is not required to invite suggested reviewers or approve reviewer-exclusion requests.

Under the single-blind peer-review model:

• reviewers are provided with the authors’ names and affiliations;
• reviewer identities are normally not disclosed to the authors;
• review reports are shared without identifying details;
• reviewers must not contact authors directly; and
• editors and editorial staff protect reviewer confidentiality.

The manuscript status may remain Reviewer Invitations Sent while the editor is inviting suitable reviewers. It may take several invitations before the required number of reviewers agrees to evaluate the manuscript.

Once sufficient reviewers have accepted, the status may change to Under Review. Reviewers are asked to assess:

• originality and importance;
• relevance to the journal;
• clarity of the research objective;
• appropriateness of the methodology;
• quality of data collection and analysis;
• validity of the findings and conclusions;
• ethical and reporting compliance;
• quality of figures, tables, and supplementary files;
• reproducibility and data transparency;
• accuracy and relevance of the citations and references; and
• revisions required before publication could be considered.

Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and must not upload submitted manuscripts or related information to unauthorized generative AI, translation, plagiarism-checking, image-analysis, or other external systems.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the handling editor or Editor-in-Chief after evaluating the manuscript, reviewer reports, author declarations, and journal policies.

5. Review Completion and Editorial Decision

When sufficient review reports have been received, the manuscript status may change to Reviews Completed, Required Reviews Complete, or Editorial Decision Pending.

The editor evaluates the reports for:

• scholarly relevance;
• specificity and clarity;
• quality of reasoning;
• consistency with the manuscript;
• professional and respectful language;
• possible reviewer conflicts of interest;
• coercive or irrelevant citation requests;
• confidential or identifying information; and
• alignment between the written comments and recommendation.

The editor does not make a decision merely by counting reviewer recommendations. A detailed and well-supported report may carry more weight than a brief or unsupported recommendation.

Where reviewer reports conflict, the editor may:

• assess which arguments are best supported;
• request clarification from a reviewer;
• invite an additional reviewer;
• consult a statistical, methodological, ethical, or technical specialist;
• request a focused author response; or
• make an independent decision based on the manuscript and available evidence.

The principal editorial decisions are:

• Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication subject to routine production checks.
• Minor Revision: Limited changes are required, but the central design, analysis, and conclusions are generally acceptable.
• Major Revision: Substantial clarification, additional analysis, restructuring, correction, or methodological explanation is required.
• Reject and Invite Resubmission: Fundamental changes are required, and a substantially revised manuscript may be considered as a new submission.
• Reject: The manuscript is unsuitable for publication or contains problems that cannot reasonably be resolved through revision.

A revision decision does not guarantee acceptance. The revised manuscript must satisfy the editor that all material scholarly, methodological, ethical, and reporting concerns have been addressed.

The decision letter normally includes:

• the editorial decision;
• the principal reasons for the decision;
• reviewer comments approved for transmission;
• mandatory revisions;
• optional suggestions;
• instructions for preparing the revision; and
• the applicable revision deadline.

6. Revision Cycle and Re-Evaluation

Authors invited to revise should submit the revised manuscript within the period stated in the decision letter. An extension may be requested from the editorial office before the deadline expires.

A revised submission should normally contain:

• a clean revised manuscript;
• a tracked-changes or highlighted version, where requested;
• a detailed point-by-point response to every editor and reviewer comment;
• updated tables, figures, data, code, or supplementary files where necessary;
• updated declarations where circumstances have changed; and
• any additional documents requested by the editor.

Each point-by-point response should:

• reproduce or identify the relevant comment;
• explain the revision made;
• identify the page, section, paragraph, table, or figure changed;
• provide supporting evidence where appropriate; and
• explain respectfully why a requested change was not made, where applicable.

Authors are not required to accept every reviewer suggestion automatically. A scientifically justified alternative or a clear evidence-based explanation will be considered by the editor.

A revised manuscript may be:

• assessed directly by the handling editor;
• returned to the original reviewers;
• sent to one or more new reviewers;
• referred to a statistical or methodological specialist;
• returned for further revision; or
• accepted or rejected.

Minor revisions are often assessed editorially. Major revisions may require another external review round, particularly where the study design, analysis, interpretation, or principal conclusions have changed.

The editorial team seeks to avoid unnecessary review rounds. Manuscripts should not be repeatedly returned to reviewers solely for minor formatting or language corrections that can reasonably be assessed by editors or production staff.

If a revised manuscript is not submitted within the required period and no extension has been approved, the editorial office may close the submission. A later version may be treated as a new submission.

7. Acceptance and Production Workflow

A manuscript receives the status Accepted only after the responsible editor confirms that:

• the manuscript makes an adequate scholarly contribution;
• the methodology and analysis are appropriate;
• the results are reported accurately;
• the conclusions are supported by the evidence;
• material reviewer concerns have been resolved;
• ethical and legal requirements have been satisfied;
• authorship and contribution information is complete;
• funding and competing interests are declared;
• data and generative AI statements are included where required;
• tables, figures, citations, and references are sufficiently complete;
• third-party permissions have been obtained; and
• no unresolved research-integrity concern remains.

After acceptance, the manuscript is transferred to production. The production workflow may include:

1. Accepted-files verification
2. Copyediting
3. Language and consistency review
4. APA reference and citation checking
5. Figure and table quality control
6. Typesetting
7. Metadata preparation
8. DOI preparation or registration
9. Author-proof preparation
10. Author corrections
11. Final production quality check
12. Publication approval

Copyediting may include correction of grammar, punctuation, spelling, consistency, terminology, references, formatting, headings, tables, figures, declarations, and journal style. Copyediting must not alter the scholarly meaning of the accepted article without editorial and author approval.

Typesetting converts the accepted manuscript into the journal’s publication layout. The typesetter prepares the article’s final structure, pagination, tables, figures, equations, references, author information, declarations, licence information, and metadata.

Author Proofs are sent to the corresponding author for final checking. Proof corrections should normally be limited to:

• typesetting errors;
• incorrect author or affiliation information;
• production-related factual errors;
• incorrect symbols, equations, tables, or figures;
• citation and reference errors;
• incorrect links, DOI details, or metadata; and
• other necessary corrections that do not substantially change the accepted article.

Substantial changes to authorship, methodology, data, analysis, results, conclusions, figures, or declarations after acceptance require editorial approval. The journal may request an explanation and written agreement from all affected authors.

An accepted manuscript may be placed on Production Hold if:

• the proof has not been returned;
• author information requires verification;
• essential files are missing;
• figure quality is insufficient;
• copyright permission remains unresolved;
• a significant citation or reference problem is identified;
• an authorship change is requested;
• an ethical or integrity concern arises; or
• the article requires further editorial clarification.

8. Publication, Metadata, Indexing, and Archiving

After author corrections and final production approval, the article is published as the version of record.

The published article will normally include:

• the article title;
• author names and affiliations;
• corresponding-author information;
• abstract and keywords;
• complete article text;
• tables, figures, equations, and references;
• funding and competing-interest statements;
• author contributions;
• data-availability information;
• ethical approval and consent information, where applicable;
• generative AI disclosure, where applicable;
• publication dates;
• DOI and citation information;
• copyright information; and
• the CC BY 4.0 licence statement.

Articles are made freely and permanently available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence. Authors retain copyright and grant TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP the non-exclusive rights necessary to publish, distribute, identify, archive, and preserve the article.

No submission fee, article processing charge, publication fee, open-access charge, page charge, or routine production fee is payable by authors.

After publication, article metadata may be distributed to:

• DOI-registration services;
• library catalogues;
• academic search engines;
• abstracting and indexing services;
• institutional and subject repositories;
• digital-preservation services;
• citation databases;
• researcher-profile systems; and
• other legitimate scholarly-discovery platforms.

Publication on the journal website does not guarantee immediate appearance in every external database. Indexing and metadata-processing times are controlled by the relevant third-party services.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP does not guarantee acceptance by any indexing database, a particular indexing date, citation performance, journal metric, or ranking.

9. Withdrawals, Ethical Holds, and Post-Publication Actions

A manuscript may be placed on Editorial Hold, Ethics Hold, or an equivalent status when further investigation or documentation is required.

A hold may be applied because of:

• unclear or disputed authorship;
• possible plagiarism or duplicate publication;
• possible fabricated or falsified data;
• possible image manipulation;
• incomplete ethical approval or informed consent;
• conflicting author statements;
• peer-review manipulation concerns;
• unverifiable references;
• undisclosed competing interests;
• unauthorized use of third-party material;
• confidentiality or privacy concerns;
• undisclosed or prohibited generative AI use;
• an institutional or legal enquiry; or
• another issue affecting the reliability or lawful publication of the manuscript.

During a hold, the editor or publisher may request:

• author explanations;
• confirmation from all co-authors;
• original or de-identified data;
• unmodified images;
• analysis code;
• ethics approval or consent records;
• copyright permissions;
• institutional clarification;
• reviewer-identity verification;
• documentation of AI use; or
• independent specialist advice.

Authors may request withdrawal before publication by submitting a written explanation. The corresponding author should confirm that all co-authors have been informed and agree to the request.

A manuscript must not be submitted to another journal until its withdrawal has been formally confirmed. After formal publication, an article cannot be treated as an unpublished withdrawal.

Publication does not end editorial responsibility. Credible concerns raised after publication will be examined and may result in:

• a minor update;
• a formal correction;
• an author-name or affiliation correction;
• an addendum;
• an expression of concern;
• a retraction; or
• a removal notice in exceptional legal, privacy, or safety circumstances.

Published content will not be changed silently when the correction affects accuracy, interpretation, attribution, or research integrity. Formal notices will be linked transparently to the affected article.

Questions concerning a manuscript’s workflow status should be submitted by the corresponding author through the editorial office of the relevant journal. Enquiries should include the manuscript identification number, article title, and corresponding author’s name.

TECHFORUM PUBLISHING GROUP
Allee 1
45143 Essen
Germany

Editorial workflow enquiries may also be submitted through the publisher’s official Contact page.