Our Commitment to Scientific Integrity
Every report submitted to TPMR undergoes anonymous peer review by qualified subject-matter experts before a publication decision is made. Review is not a formality — it is the mechanism by which TPMR maintains confidence in the quality and reliability of the applied management data it publishes.
At the same time, TPMR recognizes that applied management reports differ from primary research manuscripts. Reviewers are asked to evaluate reports against the standards appropriate for concise, practical efficacy data — not against the novelty or depth expectations of a traditional research journal. The goal is to ensure that published reports are scientifically sound, clearly presented, and genuinely useful to the turfgrass management community.
Quality Assurance
Peer review ensures that methods are complete, data are presented accurately, and statistical analyses are appropriate before a report enters the permanent record.
Anonymous Process
All reviews are conducted anonymously. Reviewer identities are never shared with authors, and author identities are not concealed from reviewers (single-blind).
Fair Evaluation
Reports are evaluated on methodological soundness and clarity of data — not on the direction of results. Well-designed trials with null results are publishable.
Constructive Feedback
Reviewers are expected to provide specific, actionable comments. Vague or dismissive feedback is not acceptable editorial practice at TPMR.
Anonymity Policy
TPMR uses a single-blind review model. Reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout and after the review process. Authors are known to reviewers, as this is consistent with practice in applied agricultural sciences where institutional affiliation and research context are often relevant to understanding the data.
Who knows what
Authors
The editorial decision and compiled reviewer comments
Reviewer names or institutional identities
Reviewers
Author names, affiliations, and submitted report content
Other reviewers' identities or comments
Associate Editor
Author identities, reviewer identities, and all review content
Nothing is withheld from the handling editor
Editor-in-Chief
All parties and all review content on escalated decisions
Routine review details unless escalated
Review Workflow
From submission to final decision, every report moves through a structured editorial workflow designed to be thorough without being unnecessarily slow. Authors receive communication at each major stage.
Submission Received
Author → Editorial OfficeAuthors complete the online submission form and upload their report. An automated confirmation is sent immediately. The editorial office reviews the submission within 5 business days.
Initial Editorial Check
Editor-in-ChiefThe Editor-in-Chief or designee assesses whether the report falls within TPMR's scope, meets basic formatting and completeness requirements, and contains sufficient information to undergo peer review. Reports that do not pass this check are returned to authors with a brief explanation.
Associate Editor Assignment
Editor-in-Chief → Associate EditorReports passing initial review are assigned to an Associate Editor with appropriate expertise in the relevant pest category and management area. The Associate Editor manages all aspects of the review from this point forward.
Reviewer Invitation
Associate Editor → ReviewersThe Associate Editor invites at least two qualified reviewers from the TPMR reviewer pool or external specialists. Reviewers are selected based on subject expertise and the absence of conflicts of interest with the submitted work.
Anonymous Peer Review
ReviewersReviewers evaluate the report against TPMR's published criteria and complete a structured review form. All reviews are anonymous and confidential. Reviewers are asked to complete their assessment within 21 days of accepting the invitation.
Editorial Decision
Associate EditorThe Associate Editor reviews all completed reviews and issues a compiled decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors receive the decision letter and anonymized reviewer comments simultaneously.
Revision (if required)
Authors → Associate EditorAuthors address reviewer comments and return a revised manuscript with a point-by-point response letter. Minor revisions are typically reviewed by the Associate Editor alone. Major revisions may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers.
Final Decision & Publication
Associate Editor → PlatformOnce all conditions are met, the report is accepted and prepared for publication. Accepted reports are published to the TPMR searchable archive and assigned a permanent URL and structured citation within a few business days.
Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are provided with a structured evaluation form covering the following areas. Each criterion is rated and accompanied by written comments. Authors receive a compiled summary of reviewer assessments with their decision letter.
Scope and Relevance
Does the report address a practical turfgrass pest management question relevant to the TPMR audience? Is the trial conducted in an appropriate managed turfgrass setting?
Completeness of Methods
Are all required elements present — experimental design, plot size, replication number, treatment descriptions, product names, active ingredients, classification codes, application timing, and rating methods?
Statistical Analysis
Is the statistical method appropriate for the data type and experimental design? Are mean separation procedures identified? Are transformations reported where used? Are significance levels stated?
Data Quality and Presentation
Are tables and figures publication-ready? Are all abbreviations defined? Are units consistent? Do the results clearly support the conclusions drawn?
Practical Relevance
Are the practical implications of the results clear? Would a turfgrass manager or extension specialist be able to act on this information?
Publication Readiness
Is the report clearly written and free of significant grammatical or formatting errors? Is it appropriately concise for the applied management report format?
Editorial Decisions
Following peer review, the Associate Editor issues one of four decisions. All decisions are communicated in writing and include the specific reviewer comments that informed the outcome.
Accept
The report is accepted as submitted or with very minor copyediting corrections that do not require re-review. Authors are notified and the report moves to production.
Minor Revision
The report requires targeted corrections — a missing method detail, a clarification in a table caption, or a rephrased results statement. Revised reports are typically reviewed by the Associate Editor alone without returning to peer reviewers.
Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment alongside the revised manuscript.
Major Revision
Substantial changes are required — supplemental data, restructured methods, additional statistical analysis, or significant rewriting. Revised manuscripts may be returned to one or more of the original reviewers for reassessment.
Authors must submit a point-by-point response letter addressing each reviewer comment alongside the revised manuscript.
Reject
The report does not meet TPMR's scope, methodological, or quality standards and cannot be revised to an acceptable state. Authors receive the reviewer comments in full. Rejected reports may not be resubmitted in the same form.
Responding to Revision Requests
Authors returning a revised manuscript should include a separate response letter that addresses each reviewer comment individually. The response letter should indicate what was changed and where, or provide a reasoned explanation if a requested change was not made. Revisions submitted without a response letter will be returned to authors before re-review begins.
Expected Timelines
TPMR is committed to efficient editorial turnaround. The timelines below represent targets, not guarantees. Delays can occur when reviewers are unavailable or when submissions require substantial revision cycles. Authors will be notified proactively if a decision is significantly delayed.
Stage-by-stage targets
Initial editorial check
Within 5 business days of submission
Reviewer invitation sent
Within 10 days of initial check
Reviewer assessment complete
Within 21 days of reviewer acceptance
First editorial decision issued
Within 60 days of original submission
Revision review (minor)
Within 14 days of revised submission
Revision review (major)
Within 30 days of revised submission
Production and publication
Within 5 business days of final acceptance
Revision deadlines are set by the editorial office at the time the decision letter is issued. Authors who need additional time should contact the Associate Editor before the deadline — extensions are generally granted when requested in advance.
Appeals & Post-Publication Corrections
Appealing a Rejection
Authors who believe a report was rejected in error — due to a factual misunderstanding of the methods, a mischaracterization of the data, or a failure to apply TPMR's stated evaluation criteria — may submit a written appeal to the Editor-in-Chief within 30 days of the decision letter.
An appeal must specifically identify the grounds for disagreement and cite the relevant reviewer comment or decision rationale. Appeals expressing general dissatisfaction with the outcome without identifying a specific error will not be considered. The Editor-in-Chief's determination on appeal is final.
Post-Publication Corrections
Authors who identify an error in a published report should contact the editorial office immediately. Minor corrections — such as a typographic error in a treatment rate or an author name — may be applied directly with a correction notice. Substantive corrections that affect the interpretation of results will be reviewed by the handling Associate Editor before changes are made.
Reports determined to contain serious methodological or data integrity errors may be retracted. Retraction notices are published in place of the original report and are permanently indexed. TPMR does not remove retraction records.
Research Misconduct
TPMR takes allegations of data fabrication, falsification, plagiarism, and duplicate submission seriously. Any credible concern about research integrity should be reported to the editorial office in confidence. Allegations are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and, where appropriate, referred to the author's institutional research integrity office.
Become a Reviewer
TPMR's review process depends on the voluntary participation of qualified turfgrass scientists and practitioners. Reviewers are matched to submissions within their specific area of expertise, and each reviewer typically receives no more than two to three requests per year.
Reviewer qualifications
- Graduate degree or equivalent professional experience in turfgrass science, plant pathology, weed science, entomology, or a related discipline
- Active familiarity with applied turfgrass research methods and field trial design
- Ability to assess statistical methods appropriate for efficacy data
- No undisclosed conflicts of interest with submitted work under review
- Commitment to completing assigned reviews within the 21-day window
What reviewers receive
Peer review at TPMR is a voluntary professional service. Reviewers are not compensated financially, but are recognized annually in the published reviewer acknowledgments — a record that substantiates their contribution to the applied turfgrass research community. Reviewers also have access to the full text of any report they review, including supplemental data files.
Interested in joining the reviewer pool?
Send a brief message to the editorial office describing your area of expertise and research background. We'll follow up with next steps.