TAMILIYAL follows a double-blind peer-review process for research articles. Author and reviewer identities are kept confidential from one another throughout the review process.

Review Process

1. Manuscript submission
2. Editorial-office screening
3. Scope and basic quality assessment
4. Similarity/plagiarism screening
5. Assignment to independent reviewers
6. Double-blind peer review
7. Editorial assessment of reviewer reports
8. Revision, where required
9. Final editorial decision
10. Copyediting and production
11. Publication

Each research article is normally evaluated by at least two independent subject specialists. For arts and humanities submissions, where applicable, editorial review may be used in accordance with the journal’s applicable review procedure and DOAJ criteria.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected according to:

• Subject expertise
• Research experience
• Independence
• Absence of relevant conflicts of interest

Author-recommended reviewers, where accepted, do not determine the reviewer selection process and must satisfy the journal’s independence requirements.

Editorial Decision

The final decision is made by the responsible editor after consideration of the reviewer reports and the manuscript’s scholarly quality. Possible decisions include:

• Accept
• Minor Revision
• Major Revision
• Revise and Resubmit
• Reject

The journal does not guarantee acceptance or publication of any submission.

Review Duration

The journal’s indicative review period is: Regular submissions: approximately 4–5 weeks. Special issues: approximately 1–2 weeks where an accelerated schedule has been formally announced. These are indicative timeframes and may vary depending on reviewer availability, revisions and editorial requirements.

Special Issues

Special-issue articles are subject to the same standards of editorial oversight and peer review as regular articles. The Editor-in-Chief retains responsibility for the scholarly integrity of the entire journal, including special issues.

Confidentiality

Reviewers must treat manuscripts as confidential documents and must not use unpublished information for personal or professional advantage.

Use of AI by Reviewers

Reviewers must not use generative AI systems to generate substantive peer-review reports or upload confidential manuscripts into such systems. Limited language editing may be permitted only where confidentiality is preserved and the use is disclosed where required.

Appeals

Authors may appeal an editorial decision by submitting a reasoned written appeal addressing the substantive grounds of the decision.