Home / News & Announcements / For Authors
For Authors

As a global open access publisher, Tech Science Press is dedicated to disseminating cutting-edge scholarly research among scientific community by advocating an immediate, world-wide and barrier-free access to the research we publish. To ensure all publication meeting our ethical and scientific quality standards, each submission goes through a rigorous review process, including pre-peer-review by relevant editorial board, a single-blind peer-review process by scientific experts, revision following reviewers’ comments as well as final approval by the editorial board.

Editorial Policies Overview


The following describes the editorial policies and general guidelines in the publication process of TSP journals.


Most particularly, TSP journals’ editorial policies strictly adopts and continuously strive to adhere to the following standards and requirements:


COPE - Committee on Publication Ethics

ICMJE - International Committee of Medical Journal Editors

STM - International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers

WAME – World Association of Medical Editors


It should be noted that editorial policies of some particular TSP journals, may be different from one another. You are advised to refer to each journals’ detailed policies before submitting your manuscripts. 

Authorship and Contribution

The listed authors include all of the individuals who have made substantial contributions to the intellectual content of an article in terms of the conception, drafting, and revising of the work and the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of the data. Their approval is required for the submitted version as well as any substantially modified version to which they have contributed. Further, all of the listed authors are considered personally responsible for all aspects of the work and must guarantee that any questions regarding its accuracy or integrity—even for aspects of the work in which an individual author did not personally take part—are appropriately examined, resolved, and documented in the article.
On the other hand, involvement in the securing of funding, collection of data, or general supervision of a research group does not in itself justify listing as an author. Rather, those who have contributed to the work in such ways should be listed in the acknowledgments.

Editors and Journal Staff as Authors

In the circumstances where Editors or editorial staff of the journal submit their own studies to the journal, they shall not be involved in the reviewing process, and the review process must be made transparently and rigorously. Submissions authored by editors or editorial staff of the journal will be handled by another editor who has least COIs with the authors to minimize the bias.

Abstracting and Indexing 

To increase your searchability, Tech Science Press (TSP) journals are indexed by major abstracting and indexing databases. Please visit the Indexing and Abstracting page of each journal for a detailed information.

Article Processing Charges (APCs)

With all the journals published in full open access, TSP allows free and unrestricted access to the full text of academic articles for scholars from all over the world. Manuscripts once accepted for publication after peer-review will incur a processing fee. Please check the Article Process Charge page of each journal for specific APCs.

Editorial Peer-review

Model of peer review

There are different models of peer review, all of which have merits and disadvantages. TSP conducts single-blind peer-review, and will initially check all manuscripts before these are sent to peer-review. A subject-specific PhD-level academic editor carries out an initial check before peer-review.


Conflicts of interest (COIs)

COIs, also referred to as “competing interests”, indicate the potential to influence the validity or objectivity of research. COIs may include personal, financial, intellectual, professional, political or religious in nature. Editors, authors, and reviewers may be involved into COIs, and TSP considers it essential to identify and seek to mitigate them so as to ensure the integrity of its role in the dissemination and preservation of knowledge. In order to limit COIs, all roles involved in the peer-review process must identify and declare any personal circumstances or associations that may be perceived as having such influence and acknowledge all funding sources for the work. Failure to declare competing interests may result in decline of a manuscript.
However, COI statements relating to public funding sources, such as government agencies and charitable or academic institutions, need not be supplied.
COIs are not considered permanent; such relationships that have ended more than two years prior to the submission of a manuscript need not be identified as sources of potential conflict.


We follow COPE guidelines on on undeclared COIs:
What to do if a reviewer suspects undisclosed COI in a submitted manuscript
What to do if you suspect a reviewer has appropriated an author’s idea or data
What to do if a reader suspects undisclosed COI in a published article


Initial checks

Before proceed to the peer-review cycle, all submitted manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will be initial-checked by a subject area specialist Managing Editor to decide whether they are (1) correctly formatted/prepared, (2) follow the ethical policies of the journal, (3) fit the scope of the journal and (4) scientifically sound. Manuscripts that do not meet the journal's requirements and standards will be rejected before peer-review. After the initial check, the managing editor will send the qualified manuscripts to journals' Editor(s). Editor(s) will make initial decisions on whether the manuscripts will be sent for peer-review. No judgment on the significance or potential impact of the work will be made at the initial check stage. Manuscripts that are inadequately prepared will be returned to the author(s) for revision and resubmission. Rejection decisions at this stage will be verified by the Editor(s).



All original articles, reviews, and other types of papers including invited papers published in TSP journals go through a vigorous and thorough peer-review procedure. After an initial check, the manuscript is assigned to a handling editor, who then manage the peer-review and otherwise oversees the whole process. Minimum of two independent reviews will be count. The peer-review is single-blind in nature, meaning that the reviewers know the identities of the authors whose work they are assessing but that the authors do not know the identities of the reviewers. Minor or major revisions may be requested to author(s). The final decision regarding acceptance is usually made by the journal’s Editor(s).



The confidentiality should be respected during the peer review process. Any details of a manuscript or its review shall not be revealed before publication. Academic contents during peer-review should not be breached and used by any roles who involved in the peer-review process.


Special Issues

Many journals publish special issues as part of the scheduled journal volumes. Special issues are often devoted to investigating the emerging or “hot” topics, or conference, or to exploring alternative perspectives on familiar themes.

A special issue can be handled by a Guest Editor. Most special issues are developed when a subject expert identifies a demand for an issue in a particular area and approaches a journal Editor to propose an issue. Please check the policies of special issue application.


Publication Ethics Statement

TSP follows COPE core practices that are applicable to all involved in publishing scholarly literature: editors and journal teams, publishers and institutions.
TSP takes vigorous ethical policies and standards on any publication ethical issues. Any allegations of research or publication misconducts are not tolerant, and further sanctions will be taken once the evidence of misconduct is confirmed, including retractions and corrections of a published material. To verify the originality of content submitted to our journals, we use iThenticate to check submissions against previous publications. (or some example of general plagiarism like coping, double submission, manual data making, omission or addition of authors, retracting papers after publication in cases where plagiarism is identified).
TSP is obliged to provide authors with appropriate layouts based on correct information presented by authors. TSP also takes responsibility for any mistakes made by the publisher and endeavors to avoid these in all cases


Plagiarism, duplicate/redundant publication

Plagiarism includes copying text, ideas, images, or data from another source, even from your own publications, without giving any credit to the original source. Plagiarism is strictly not acceptable in any submissions to TSP. All sources must be cited at the point they are used, and reuse of wordings must be limited, be attributed to, or quoted, in the text. Manuscripts that are detected to have plagiarism will be rejected (if unpublished) or retracted (if published), as appropriate.
Duplicate submission/publication refer to the practice of submitting the same study to two journals or publishing more or less the same study in two journals. These submissions/publications can be nearly simultaneous or years later.
Redundant publication (salami publishing) refers to the situation that one study is split into several parts and submitted to two or more journals.
TSP will follow the flowcharts recommended by COPE on handling the suspected cases:
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a published manuscript


Fabrication, falsification, and image manipulation

Data fabrication is the intentional misrepresentation of research data by making-up findings, recording, or reporting of results. Data falsification is the manipulation of research materials, equipment, or processes, including omitting and changing data, with the intention of giving a false impression. Changes to images can create misleading results when research data are collected as images. Inappropriate image manipulation is one form of fabrication or falsification that journals can identify. The authors of submitted manuscripts or published articles in which the results are found to have been fabricated, falsified, or subjected to image manipulation, will be sanctioned, and their published articles will be retracted immediately.
TSP will follow the flowcharts recommended by COPE on handling the suspected cases:

Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a submitted manuscript
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a published manuscript
Suspected redundant (duplicate) publication in a published manuscript


Citation manipulation and systematic manipulation

TSP defines citation manipulation as the act of excessive citation of articles, with the purpose of increasing citation rates and raising a journal's impact factor. Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released a discussion document, explains how coercive citation manipulation has been practiced by editors and reviewers, and distinguishes between legitimate and illegitimate reasons for self-citation.
Systematic manipulation refers to repeat use of dishonest or fraudulent practices by an individual or a group of individuals to prevent or influence the independent assessment of a piece of scholarly work by an independent peer; or inappropriately attribute authorship of a piece of scholarly work; or publish fabricated or plagiarised research.


Research Ethics

Research Involving Human Subjects, Animals, and Cell Lines


All studies involving human subjects or human-related data or material, must have adhered to the standards established by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and COPE’s Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines. These standards require that all,research performed on human subjects including research on identifiable human material and data, must follow the international rules set out in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1964, revised in 2013 (wma.net/what-we-do/medical-ethics/declaration-of-helsinki/).

Authors shall include upon submission of their manuscript, a written statement briefly describing the aim of the experiment, a justification for the undertaken grouping in terms of race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed ordering, and whether or not an approval from an appropriate ethics committee or a local institutional review board (IRB) has been obtained before conducting the study. If such an approval was obtained, the original source and reference shall be provided to the journal’s editor at the time of submission and shall appear in the article. 

Informed Consent

For reporting that include case details, personal information, and/or images of patients, authors must obtain signed informed consent for publication from patients/guardians before submission of their manuscript. An consent for publication should be obtained from participating adults, parents, legal guardians, or legally authorized individuals, and clearly declared in the manuscript. Authors should also disclose to participants in their studies any personally identifiable material that could possibly be made public, be available on the Internet, and/or in print upon publication. In the absence of a written consent, manuscripts may still be considered for publishing, if all identifying information has been removed. While every precaution must be taken to protect the privacy of research subjects and the confidentiality of their personal information
, when consent is not available nor attainable, the Editor could exercise his prerogatives of publishing those manuscripts when deemed that considerations of public interest outweigh privacy issues. 



Experiments performed using animals must be conducted under strict ethical standards and rigorous protocols aimed at safeguarding animals welfare. Authors should refer to and adhere  to relevant international, national, and/or institutional guidelines e.g. the local and national regulations in accordance with the U.K. Animals Act and associated guidelines, the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, the Code of Practice for the Housing and Care of Animals Used in Scientific Procedures,  TSP supports the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting experiments using live animals and encourages authors to consult it as a checklist for full compliance.

Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must be carried out in accordance with the ethical guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement regarding granted ethics permissions granted or/and animal licenses should be included in the manuscript. When ethical approval is not required for animals use, a clear statement describing the reasons behind that determination should be included in the manuscript.

For all cases, a statement should be included confirming that all efforts were made to alleviate sufferings of animals in use, with a detailed description of the means and ways it was achieved.

Cell Lines

All articles reporting on research involving cell lines that are published in TSP journals must state the origin of the lines in the Methods section. For established cell lines, the provenance should be stated and references provided to either a published paper or to a commercial source. If previously unpublished de novo cell lines were used, including any acquired from another laboratory, the authors of the article must supply details regarding the necessary approval from an institutional review board or ethics committee, as well as confirmation of written informed consent in the case of human cell lines.

Research Involving Plants

Experimental research on plants (cultivated and wild), including the collection of plant materials, must be conducted in compliance with applicable institutional, national, and international guidelines. We therefore recommend that authors consult the Convention on Biological Diversity as well as the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.


Clinical Study Reporting Guidelines

For articles in the life sciences, standards of reporting guidelines have been devised to help authors ensure that they have provided a comprehensive description of their research, making it easier for others to assess and reproduce the work;

When reporting clinical studies, authors are encouraged to follow the reporting guidelines listed below:

Randomized trials (CONSORT)

Observational studies (STROBE)

Systematic reviews (PRISMA)

Case reports (CARE)

Qualitative research (SRQR

Diagnostic / prognostic studies (STARD)

Quality improvement studies (SQUIRE)
Economic evaluations (
Animal pre-clinical studies (

Study protocols (SPIRIT)

Clinical practice guidelines (AGREE)

Editorial Decision

The decision regarding publication may take one of four forms.

  • Accept 

  • The paper is in principle accepted based on the reviewers’ comments. The decision to publish is not based solely on the scientific validity of an article’s content but may also take into account such considerations as its extent and importance.

  • Minor revisions 

  • The paper is to be accepted after it has undergone minor revisions specified in the reviewers’ comments. In this situation, authors have five days to complete the minor revisions along with point-by-point responses to the comments or to provide a rebuttal letter.

  • Major revisions 

  • The paper may be accepted provided that it is thoroughly revised. In this case as well, the authors must provide a point-by-point response or rebuttal to the comments, and the revised version is sent to the same reviewer for further comment.

  • Decline

  • Articles are rejected without the possibility of acceptance after revision when they are found to suffer from serious flaws and/or to make no substantial original contribution to the scholarship.

Decisions are communicated to the corresponding author in a formal letter, along with reviewer feedback and any other requirements from the journal office


In the cases in which revisions are called for, then, authors are expected to provide point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments, especially in those instances in which they disagree with the comments. Usually author(s) will have a certain long time to resubmit the revised manuscript for both a major or a minor revision. In most cases, the revised manuscript is re-assigned to the original Editor(s). The editor(s) may make a new decision based on their own assessment of the revised manuscript and your response to reviewers, or request a new round of peer-review.

Transferring to Other Journals

Authors can request that submissions (with referee reports, if relevant) rejected from one TSP journal be transferred to another TSP journal for further consideration there. Manuscripts will never be transferred between the journals without an author’s consent. We trust that reviewers for any TSP journal are willing to have their reviews considered by the editors of another TSP journal.