Peer Review Policy

All manuscripts submitted to TAIJA – Tatwachintanam: International Journal of Ayurveda must be initially blinded by the authors. The manuscript file should exclude any author identifiers, institutional affiliations, acknowledgments, or any other information that could compromise anonymity. A separate title page must be uploaded containing author details and affiliations.

Upon submission, the editorial board conducts an initial screening for scope, plagiarism, and formatting. Manuscripts that meet TAIJA’s editorial standards are forwarded for double-blind peer review.

Reviewer Invitation and Process

  • Editors invite appropriate reviewers by sending them the manuscript title, abstract, and a secure login link to the TAIJA submission portal.
  • Invited reviewers are requested to accept or decline the assignment within 3 days.
  • Upon acceptance, reviewers can access the blinded manuscript, download it, and submit comments using the official TAIJA Review Template.
  • Reviewers are expected to complete their evaluations within 7 days, with a possible extension of up to 15 daysupon request.
  • TAIJA endeavors to complete the peer review and editorial decision process within 4 weeksof initial submission, provided authors respond promptly to review comments.

 Guidelines for Reviewers

All reviewers must adhere to the following standards established by the TAIJA Tatwachintanam International Journal of Ayurveda Editorial Board:

  1. Timely Evaluation: Reviewers must complete the review within the assigned timeframe or notify the editor in case of delays.
  2. Double-Blind Confidentiality: The peer review process is strictly double-blind. Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and avoid any conflicts of interest.
  3. Objective Critique: Reviews should be based solely on academic merit, without bias or personal judgment.
  4. Constructive Feedback: Feedback should be clear, respectful, and designed to improve the scientific quality of the manuscript, even if the overall recommendation is to reject.
  5. Revision Follow-Up: Reviewers who reviewed the initial version may be invited to assess the revised manuscript to ensure that suggested changes were appropriately addressed.
  6. Adherence to Journal Format: Reviewers should not suggest reformatting that contradicts TAIJA’s official style and structure unless justified academically.
  7. Editorial Authority: While reviewer feedback is critical, the final decision rests with the TAIJA Editors, who may override recommendations in exceptional circumstances.