Policy Statement

EVALUATION PRINCIPLES

All Members of the Editorial Board agreed that:

The purpose of TISR is to analyze the changes of the contemporary industrial societies.
In accordance with its central model, TISR shall focus on the strategies of the ruling class as an essential explanatory factor and shall associate the economic, ethnic and interpersonal fields of investigation.
In an effort to overcome the limitations of the division of labor and expertise specialization, TISR shall be interdisciplinary and cross-cultural, so as to provide readers with a truly comprehensive perspective.
TISR intends to make a contribution to the improvement of the political, social, moral, and economic environment; therefore, it may take a critical and evaluative perspective in order to help stimulate positive change.
TISR will aim at publishing world class quality articles and works.
Unlike many other academic reviews, TISR shall particularly value the criteria of social utility and efficient communication.
In many institutions today, academic evaluation is biased by bureaucratic, personal or political factors. TISR will contribute to reestablishing impartial and rational academic evaluation in the social and economic sciences.
TISR shall institute a procedure that will be fair and respectful to authors. The comments provided to authors by Editorial Board members shall be designed to help authors produce articles that subscribe to an international standard of quality.

Criteria for evaluation

Our evaluation criteria are the following:

Clarity of formal structure.
Consistency with TISR model.
Appropriateness of methodology.
Results/conclusions supported by data analysis.
Clarity of findings and extrapolatability to other value fields.
Originality of findings/conclusions.
Style clarity and reader-friendliness.
Conformity to TISR guidelines for authors (click on “how to submit”).

Criteria weighting and scales are determined by our specific methodology. They may be updated according to our editorial policy and to the reactions of the editorial market.

Procedure of evaluation

The following evaluation procedure is applied:

Receipt of submissions is systematically acknowledged.
Submissions are anonymously peer reviewed; both authors and reviewers are anonymous. Articles written by Editorial Board Members are refereed by independent referees.
Referees are at least two, one being a specialist in the field involved (in order to test technical accurateness) and the other a non-specialist (in order to test reader-friendliness, social usefulness, and acceptability by the public).
Evaluation is as prompt as possible. It is processed within an approximate three-months time frame.
If the Editorial Board decides that a paper can be published only after some improvements, the author should send the revised version of the paper to the Review within two months of receiving the request of revision.
Once a paper has been submitted for evaluation, it may not be withdrawn by authors.
There may not be more than three rounds of reviews.