Governance

Governance Structure

Ta'lim Fidoyilari operates a two-tier governance model that separates editorial decision-making from publisher administration, mirroring the structures expected by Scopus, Web of Science, DOAJ and COPE.

Last updated: 2026-06-01 · Transparency Center

Organisational Structure

Publisher Tier

Research and Publications MChJ — provides legal entity, finance, infrastructure, indexing memberships and long-term archiving. Does not intervene in editorial decisions.

Editorial Tier

Editor-in-Chief, Associate Editors, Section Editors, Managing Editor and the International Editorial Board — exclusive authority over scientific content.

Advisory Tier

International Advisory Board of senior scholars from multiple countries who advise on policy, scope and strategic direction.

Ethics Committee

Independent committee that handles allegations of misconduct under COPE flowcharts, separate from day-to-day editorial handling.

Editorial Structure

Editor-in-Chief

Chairs the Editorial Board, sets editorial policy and issues final decisions.

Associate Editors

Handle manuscripts in their thematic areas; recommend decisions after peer review.

Section Editors

Curate themed sections, special issues and field-specific reviewer pools.

Managing Editor

Operational lead — coordinates workflow, timelines, communications and compliance.

Editorial Board Members

International scholars who review, advise on scope and represent the journal in their regions.

Reviewers

External subject experts performing double-anonymous peer review on assigned manuscripts.

Responsibilities

Editor-in-Chief — final editorial authority, COPE compliance, retraction decisions, conflict resolution.
Associate / Section Editors — desk evaluation, reviewer selection, decision recommendations, revision oversight.
Managing Editor — submission triage, timeline monitoring, author communication, indexing/metadata QA.
Editorial Board — periodic policy review, reviewer recommendations, scope guidance, international outreach.
Reviewers — confidential, unbiased, evidence-based assessment within agreed timelines.
Publisher — infrastructure, indexing fees, archiving, legal compliance — NO interference with editorial decisions.
Ethics Committee — independent investigation of misconduct allegations, recommendation of corrections or retractions.

Decision-Making Process

1 · Submission & Triage

Managing Editor performs technical checks (scope, format, plagiarism, ethics declarations) within 5 working days.

2 · Desk Evaluation

Editor-in-Chief or assigned Associate Editor reviews scope and quality; may desk-reject within 7 days.

3 · Peer Review

Two or more independent reviewers perform double-anonymous review, typically within 21 days.

4 · Editorial Recommendation

Associate Editor synthesises reviews and recommends Accept / Minor / Major / Reject.

5 · Final Decision

Editor-in-Chief issues the formal decision; documented and communicated to the author.

6 · Appeals & Misconduct

Independent appeal handled by a different editor; misconduct routed to the Ethics Committee under COPE flowcharts.