Three Teachings Studies: Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism (TTS) is committed to maintaining the integrity, reliability, independence, and transparency of scholarly publishing. The journal requires authors, reviewers, editors, and the publisher to uphold responsible academic conduct throughout manuscript preparation, submission, evaluation, publication, and post-publication assessment. Its ethical framework is informed by internationally recognized principles of scholarly publishing, including relevant guidance issued by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The journal applies these principles in a manner appropriate to research in philosophy, religious studies, intellectual history, philology, and related humanities and social science disciplines.

TTS recognizes that scholarship on Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism encompasses diverse intellectual traditions, research methods, cultural settings, and forms of evidence. Responsible publication ethics therefore requires more than compliance with formal manuscript requirements. It includes accurate representation of historical sources, transparent interpretation of religious and philosophical materials, responsible treatment of living communities, proper recognition of scholarly contributions, and fair evaluation of competing academic perspectives.

These standards apply to all scholarly contributions according to their content and publication category. Research Articles ordinarily undergo double-blind external peer review, while other contribution types may receive editorial assessment or specialist review. All published work remains subject to applicable requirements concerning originality, authorship, research integrity, copyright, ethical disclosure, and the maintenance of the scholarly record.

Ethical Principles and Editorial Standards

The journal's ethical framework is founded on the following principles:

• Academic Integrity: Research must be conducted and reported honestly, with accurate representation of evidence, sources, arguments, methods, and findings.
• Originality and Attribution: Scholarly contributions must be properly attributed, and authors must distinguish their original work from existing research, translations, source materials, and interpretations.
• Editorial Independence: Scholarly decisions must remain independent of inappropriate financial, institutional, political, personal, or commercial influence.
• Fair and Impartial Evaluation: Manuscripts must be assessed according to their academic merit and applicable editorial criteria, without discrimination or favoritism.
• Confidentiality and Responsible Information Management: Unpublished research, confidential editorial communications, protected personal information, and peer review materials must be handled appropriately.
• Transparency and Accountability: Relevant scholarly contributions, funding arrangements, competing interests, research limitations, and significant assistance must be disclosed where applicable.
• Correction of the Scholarly Record: Credible concerns must be considered fairly, and appropriate action must be taken when published research requires correction, clarification, or retraction.

Responsibilities of Authors

Authors bear primary responsibility for the accuracy, originality, ethical conduct, and scholarly reliability of their submissions. These responsibilities extend to the research materials, arguments, interpretations, documentary evidence, and declarations presented in a manuscript.

Authors must observe the following requirements:

• Original Scholarly Contribution: Submitted manuscripts must present identifiable original research, critical interpretation, scholarly synthesis, translation, annotation, or other contributions appropriate to the selected publication category.
• Accurate Use of Sources: Historical documents, philosophical writings, religious scriptures, archival records, translations, research data, and other scholarly materials must be represented accurately and documented sufficiently for evaluation.
• Prohibition of Fabrication and Falsification: Authors must not invent sources, quotations, archival materials, research participants, observations, findings, bibliographic references, or other evidence. Deliberate manipulation or misleading presentation of evidence is unacceptable.
• Proper Citation and Attribution: All borrowed language, arguments, interpretations, translations, findings, and other intellectual contributions must be acknowledged appropriately. TTS requires The Chicago Manual of Style, Notes and Bibliography system.
• Exclusive Submission: The same manuscript must not be under consideration for publication by another journal or publisher at the time of submission, unless an exceptional arrangement has been expressly authorized.
• Disclosure of Prior Dissemination: Authors must disclose relevant theses, dissertations, preprints, conference papers, working papers, previous publications, translations, or related manuscripts when they may affect originality, publication rights, or editorial eligibility.
• Authorship Accuracy: All listed authors must have made substantive scholarly contributions and approved the submitted manuscript. Guest, honorary, gift, ghost, and otherwise misleading authorship arrangements are unacceptable.
• Funding and Competing Interests: Relevant financial, institutional, professional, or personal interests that could materially influence the research or its interpretation must be disclosed.
• Ethical Research Conduct: Authors must comply with applicable requirements governing human participants, fieldwork, privacy, consent, cultural restrictions, copyright, and the lawful use of research materials.
• Post-Publication Cooperation: Authors must promptly report substantive errors in published work and cooperate with reasonable editorial requests for clarification, correction, or supporting documentation.

TTS recognizes that scholarly translations, textual editions, critical annotations, and documentary studies may legitimately reproduce or closely examine existing historical materials. Such work is not inherently unoriginal merely because the source text predates the manuscript. Authors must identify the materials used and clearly distinguish their own scholarly contributions from previously existing texts, translations, editions, and interpretations.

Detailed requirements are provided in the Author Ethical Responsibilities and Submission Guidelines.

Authorship, Contributions, and Changes to Authorship

Authorship must reflect meaningful intellectual participation in the research or preparation of the scholarly work. Relevant contributions may include research conception, source investigation, analytical or methodological development, textual interpretation, substantial writing, critical revision, or other original scholarly activity.

Academic rank, administrative authority, institutional affiliation, funding provision, or general supervision does not independently establish entitlement to authorship. Individuals who provide valuable assistance without qualifying for authorship should be acknowledged where appropriate and with any necessary consent.

All authors must approve the submitted version and agree to its submission. The corresponding author is responsible for coordinating manuscript communication and ensuring that the journal receives accurate author information and relevant declarations.

Requests to add, remove, or reorder authors after submission must be explained to the editorial office. The journal may require agreement from affected contributors and relevant supporting information before approving a change. Authorship disputes that cannot be resolved through reasonable editorial clarification may require consultation with the relevant institutions or competent authorities.

Originality, Plagiarism, and Similarity Screening

TTS prohibits plagiarism, misleading attribution, fabricated references, substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published work, and other practices that misrepresent the origin or originality of scholarly contributions.

Authors are required to complete a preliminary similarity check before submission. The journal establishes a total similarity threshold below 15%, excluding references and bibliography. The editorial office conducts randomized similarity spot checks and targeted verification where concerns arise.

A similarity score is an administrative screening measure and does not independently establish plagiarism or demonstrate that a manuscript is free from misconduct. Overlap involving classical scriptures, standardized expressions, properly identified quotations, established terminology, or legitimate documentary materials must be assessed in its scholarly context.

Concerns are evaluated according to the nature of the overlap, the accuracy of attribution, the publication history of the material, and the extent to which the manuscript presents an original scholarly contribution. Detailed procedures are provided in the Plagiarism & Similarity Screening Policy.

Research Ethics, Human Participants, and Cultural Materials

Research involving living individuals, communities, personal information, interviews, participant observation, oral history, or ethnographic fieldwork must comply with applicable legal, institutional, and disciplinary ethical requirements.

Authors should address the following considerations where relevant:

• Ethical Approval: Obtain institutional ethics review approval, an applicable exemption, or other required authorization where the nature of the research and relevant rules require it.
• Informed Consent: Obtain appropriate consent for research participation, interviews, recordings, or publication of identifiable materials when required.
• Privacy and Confidentiality: Protect personal information and apply appropriate anonymization, pseudonymization, access controls, or other safeguards.
• Religious and Cultural Context: Respect applicable restrictions concerning confidential rituals, restricted religious knowledge, sacred objects, community-specific practices, and sensitive cultural documentation.
• Images and Recordings: Obtain appropriate authorization for identifiable photographs, interviews, audio recordings, and other materials involving living participants.
• Responsible Representation: Distinguish documented beliefs and practitioner accounts from independently established historical or empirical findings.

TTS does not assume that all historical, philosophical, literary, or archival research requires human-participant ethics approval. Authors must identify and comply with the requirements applicable to their specific methods, sources, institutions, and jurisdictions.

Ethical obligations may continue after research data have been collected. Authors should consider the implications of publication for participants, communities, restricted materials, and other individuals whose interests may be affected by public dissemination.

Research Evidence, Data Availability, and Reproducibility

Authors must provide sufficient methodological and documentary information to allow readers and reviewers to evaluate the reliability of their scholarly claims. The appropriate form of transparency depends on the research method and may involve primary-source citations, archival references, manuscript identifiers, textual variants, translation principles, interview methods, analytical procedures, or supporting data.

Authors should retain relevant research records and source documentation sufficient to address reasonable questions concerning their findings. Where appropriate and legally permissible, the journal encourages the sharing of supporting materials that facilitate scholarly verification.

The journal does not impose a universal public data-deposit requirement on all humanities research. Access to archival collections, manuscripts, interviews, religious materials, and other sources may be constrained by copyright, confidentiality agreements, repository rules, cultural restrictions, or the rights of research participants.

When supporting materials cannot be made publicly available, authors should explain relevant limitations to the extent necessary for responsible scholarly evaluation without violating legal, ethical, or confidentiality obligations.

Artificial Intelligence and Automated Research Tools

TTS recognizes that artificial intelligence and automated tools may assist scholarly research, language preparation, translation, analysis, and manuscript production. Their use must remain consistent with transparency, source reliability, confidentiality, and human scholarly accountability.

• Human Authorship: Artificial intelligence systems must not be identified as authors or co-authors. Human scholars retain responsibility for the manuscript and its claims.
• Disclosure of Substantive Use: Authors must disclose material AI assistance in research analysis, interpretation, translation, content generation, or manuscript preparation where it substantively contributes to the scholarly work. Disclosures should identify the nature and purpose of the assistance.
• Independent Verification: Authors must verify AI-assisted references, quotations, source descriptions, translations, historical interpretations, analytical claims, and other research content against reliable evidence.
• Protection of Restricted Materials: Confidential participant information, unpublished manuscripts, restricted archival materials, and other protected data must not be disclosed to external AI services without appropriate authorization and safeguards.
• Prohibition of Fabricated Scholarship: AI-generated references, invented quotations, fictitious documents, misleading translations, and unsupported scholarly claims are unacceptable when presented as authentic evidence.
• Human Editorial Judgment: Automated tools must not replace the independent responsibility of editors and reviewers to evaluate scholarly arguments, methods, originality, evidence, and ethical compliance.

Reviewers and editors must not upload confidential submissions, unpublished research materials, peer review reports, or protected editorial correspondence to external AI services without explicit authorization and appropriate safeguards. Any permitted technical assistance remains subordinate to human responsibility for the scholarly evaluation.

Responsibilities of Peer Reviewers

Peer reviewers contribute to the quality and reliability of scholarly publishing through independent, competent, confidential, and evidence-based evaluation. Their recommendations must address the academic merits and limitations of the manuscript rather than personal preferences or unrelated considerations.

• Confidentiality: Reviewers must treat manuscripts, supplementary materials, review reports, and editorial communications as confidential.
• Independence and Objectivity: Evaluations must be based on scholarly contribution, methodological appropriateness, reliability of evidence, argumentation, and relevance to the journal's scope.
• Competence: Reviewers should accept invitations only when they possess appropriate expertise or clearly disclose limitations relevant to the requested evaluation.
• Timeliness: Reviewers should respect agreed deadlines and notify the editorial office promptly if they cannot complete an assignment.
• Competing Interests: Reviewers must disclose relationships or circumstances that may affect their independence or reasonably create an appearance of partiality.
• Professional Conduct: Review reports should be constructive, reasoned, and respectful. Abusive language, discriminatory judgments, personal attacks, and unsupported accusations are unacceptable.
• Protection of Unpublished Research: Reviewers must not appropriate unpublished ideas, evidence, interpretations, or other materials encountered during evaluation.
• Reporting Ethical Concerns: Reviewers should notify the responsible editor of credible concerns involving plagiarism, fabricated evidence, misleading documentation, manipulation of peer review, or other possible misconduct.

Reviewers must not delegate an assigned review to another person without editorial authorization. Further requirements are provided in the Reviewer Guidelines and Confidentiality & Ethics.

Responsibilities of Editors

The editorial team is responsible for administering a fair, independent, confidential, and academically rigorous manuscript evaluation process. Editors must exercise scholarly judgment responsibly and apply published editorial standards consistently.

• Scholarly Decision-Making: Editorial decisions must reflect the manuscript's originality, academic contribution, evidentiary reliability, methodological or analytical quality, and suitability for the journal.
• Fair Treatment: Manuscripts must be assessed without improper discrimination or favoritism based on nationality, ethnicity, gender, religion, institutional affiliation, academic status, or other irrelevant personal characteristics.
• Reviewer Selection: Editors must seek appropriately qualified and independent reviewers whose expertise corresponds to the manuscript's subject and methodology.
• Confidentiality: Editors must safeguard unpublished submissions, reviewer identities, confidential reports, and protected editorial information.
• Conflict Management: Editors must disclose relevant competing interests and recuse themselves from manuscripts where impartial decision-making may be compromised.
• Independence from Publication Fees: Authors' ability to pay an APC, eligibility for a waiver, or other financial circumstances must not determine scholarly evaluation or acceptance.
• Research Integrity Oversight: Editors must consider credible allegations of misconduct fairly and take appropriate action when the reliability of a submission or publication is in question.
• Accountability for Decisions: Editors must communicate relevant editorial outcomes and provide appropriate procedural clarification when legitimate concerns are raised.

Editorial board members, editors, or individuals connected with the publisher are not automatically excluded from submitting scholarly work. However, manuscripts involving such individuals must be handled under arrangements that protect editorial independence, including reassignment to an appropriately independent editor when necessary. The individuals concerned must not control the selection of reviewers or the acceptance decision for their own submissions.

Responsibilities of the Publisher

Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG), as the publisher of TTS, supports the journal's editorial governance, digital publishing infrastructure, administrative procedures, and maintenance of the scholarly publication record.

The publisher must respect the independence of scholarly editorial decisions and must not use publication fees, commercial interests, institutional relationships, or other inappropriate pressures to determine manuscript acceptance or rejection.

The publisher should support transparent public information about editorial policies, peer review procedures, applicable publication charges, copyright arrangements, and open-access conditions. It should also cooperate with the editorial team in addressing legitimate complaints, protecting confidential information, and maintaining accurate publication records.

When concerns involve an editor's own conduct or a conflict affecting the journal's editorial leadership, the publisher may assist in arranging a review by an appropriately independent person who was not responsible for the contested decision. Such administrative oversight must not be used to override legitimate scholarly judgment for improper reasons.

Peer Review Integrity and Confidentiality

TTS ordinarily applies double-blind peer review by at least two independent external reviewers to Research Articles. Other scholarly contributions may undergo editorial assessment or external specialist review according to their nature and the journal's applicable procedures.

Authors and reviewers must respect the anonymity protections associated with double-blind review. Although complete anonymity cannot always be guaranteed in highly specialized research fields, participants must not deliberately compromise the review process or attempt to obtain confidential information improperly.

Peer review manipulation is prohibited. This includes fabricated reviewer identities, misleading contact information, fraudulent reports, reviewer impersonation, undisclosed coordination, attempts to influence reviewers improperly, and other conduct intended to distort independent scholarly assessment.

Review materials must be accessed only by individuals with a legitimate editorial role. Reviewer reports and confidential editorial communications may be shared with relevant parties only as authorized by the journal's review procedures or required by applicable law. Further details are available in the Peer Review Policy.

Conflicts of Interest and Editorial Recusal

Authors, reviewers, editors, and other participants in the publication process must disclose interests or relationships that could reasonably influence, or appear to influence, their professional judgment.

Potential conflicts may include:

• Direct financial interests, sponsorship, consultancy, or publication-related commercial relationships.
• Recent or current research collaboration, co-authorship, supervision, mentorship, or close institutional relationships.
• Personal, family, professional, or adversarial relationships that could materially affect impartiality.
• Direct involvement in the manuscript, its underlying research, or a decision concerning its publication.
• Other circumstances creating a material interest in the outcome of the editorial or scholarly evaluation.

A disclosed interest does not automatically constitute misconduct or always require exclusion from the process. The responsible editor must assess the nature and significance of the conflict and determine whether disclosure, reassignment, recusal, or another safeguard is appropriate.

Religious belief, intellectual position, political opinion, or membership in an academic institution does not independently establish a conflict of interest. Disclosure must be proportionate to interests materially relevant to the research or its evaluation. The journal does not require unnecessary disclosure of unrelated sensitive personal information.

Allegations of Research and Publication Misconduct

TTS takes credible allegations of research or publication misconduct seriously, whether raised before or after publication. Concerns may be submitted by authors, reviewers, readers, institutional representatives, or other individuals with relevant information.

Potential misconduct may include, but is not limited to:

• Plagiarism, redundant publication, or substantial undisclosed reuse of previously published research.
• Fabrication, falsification, or deliberate distortion of historical sources, translations, research data, quotations, or findings.
• Fabricated bibliographic references, false source attributions, citation manipulation, or deliberate misrepresentation of scholarly evidence.
• Fraudulent authorship claims, undisclosed substantial contributions, or manipulation of author lists.
• Peer review manipulation, fabricated reviewer identities, unauthorized disclosure of confidential manuscripts, or misappropriation of unpublished work.
• Serious violations of applicable participant protections, confidentiality obligations, research ethics requirements, or copyright permissions.
• Material nondisclosure of relevant competing interests or other deliberate misrepresentations affecting publication integrity.

A methodological disagreement, differing philosophical interpretation, contested historical hypothesis, or good-faith academic criticism does not, by itself, constitute misconduct. Allegations must be considered according to their evidentiary basis, the relevant scholarly standards, and the seriousness of the alleged conduct.

Procedures for Assessing Ethical Concerns

Ethical concerns are handled through a proportionate process intended to protect the scholarly record while respecting fairness, confidentiality, and the rights of the parties involved. The precise procedure may vary according to the nature of the allegation and the available evidence.

1. Receipt and Documentation: The editorial office receives the concern and records the relevant manuscript or article information, alleged issue, and available supporting evidence.
2. Preliminary Assessment: The responsible editor considers whether the concern falls within the journal's ethical responsibilities and whether the available information warrants further assessment. A substantiated concern may be pursued even when the individual reporting it requests anonymity.
3. Conflict-of-Interest Review: Individuals whose independence may be compromised by their involvement in the matter should not determine its outcome. An appropriately independent editor or qualified person may be assigned where necessary.
4. Request for Clarification: Where appropriate, the editorial office may request explanations, source materials, research documentation, authorship information, or other relevant evidence. Affected parties should ordinarily have a reasonable opportunity to respond to substantive allegations.
5. Independent Consultation: The journal may consult external specialists, institutional research integrity offices, legal advisers, or other competent authorities when the nature of the matter requires expertise or authority beyond the editorial office.
6. Editorial Determination: The journal considers the available evidence and determines whether no further action, clarification, manuscript rejection, additional evaluation, correction, an expression of concern, retraction, or another appropriate measure is warranted.
7. Recordkeeping and Follow-Up: Relevant editorial decisions and supporting information are documented appropriately. Post-publication actions are communicated through suitable notices where required to preserve the integrity of the scholarly record.

The journal seeks to protect individuals who raise credible concerns in good faith. Confidentiality will be maintained to the extent reasonably possible, subject to fair assessment, applicable law, and any necessary disclosure to relevant authorities. Anonymous allegations may be considered when they contain sufficiently specific and verifiable information.

The editorial office is responsible for decisions concerning its own publication record. Formal determinations of institutional research misconduct may fall within the authority of an author's university, research institution, employer, or another competent body. The journal may cooperate with such investigations when appropriate.

An allegation alone does not establish wrongdoing. At the same time, the journal may take proportionate protective action when necessary to prevent further harm to the scholarly record while a significant concern remains under assessment.

Corrections, Expressions of Concern, and Retractions

TTS recognizes that responsible scholarly publishing includes the continuing assessment and, when necessary, correction of the published record. Editorial action should correspond to the reliability of the affected work and the nature of the identified problem.

• Corrections: A correction may be published when an identifiable error affects the accuracy, attribution, documentation, or interpretation of an article but does not fundamentally invalidate its central scholarly contribution. Corrections should identify the affected publication and explain the material change.
• Expressions of Concern: An expression of concern may be appropriate when serious questions concerning a publication's reliability remain unresolved and readers should be informed of the uncertainty. An expression of concern is not a finding of misconduct or a substitute for a retraction when retraction is warranted.
• Retractions: Retraction may be appropriate when significant findings, central arguments, source evidence, or other essential elements of a publication are substantially unreliable, or when serious publication integrity problems justify its withdrawal from the reliable scholarly record.
• Replacement or Removal: Removal of published content is exceptional and may be considered where required by law or necessary to address serious privacy, safety, or other overriding concerns. Ordinary scholarly errors should generally be addressed through transparent publication notices rather than silent deletion.

Correction, concern, and retraction notices should clearly identify the affected publication, provide an appropriate explanation of the editorial action, and remain accessible as part of the publication record. Where technically and administratively feasible, related article records and metadata should be updated to identify the relevant notice.

Retracted articles will ordinarily remain identifiable through their original publication records and linked notices. The purpose of retraction is to correct the scholarly literature, rather than to impose a punishment. A retraction may result from serious error without deliberate misconduct, and a misconduct allegation does not automatically require retraction.

The journal's approach is informed by relevant publication ethics guidance, including the COPE Retraction Guidelines.

Complaints and Editorial Appeals

TTS accepts appropriately documented complaints and editorial appeals concerning procedural fairness, relevant ethical concerns, significant factual misunderstandings, or other matters affecting the integrity of editorial decisions and published research.

Complaints and appeals should:

• Identify the manuscript, published article, editorial decision, or matter concerned.
• Explain the specific procedural, factual, ethical, or substantive grounds for the complaint or appeal.
• Provide supporting documentation or other relevant evidence where available.
• Be submitted in a professional manner that respects the rights and confidentiality of other participants in the publication process.

An appeal may be considered when there is a credible basis to believe that an editorial decision involved a significant procedural irregularity, material factual error, unmanaged conflict of interest, or other substantive problem affecting its fairness. Academic disagreement with a reviewer's interpretation or recommendation does not, by itself, establish grounds for reversing an editorial decision.

Complaints involving the conduct or decision of a specific editor should, where practicable, be assessed by an individual who was not directly responsible for the matter. Concerns involving the Editor-in-Chief may be referred to the publisher for appropriate independent procedural consideration.

The journal may seek independent advice, additional evaluation, clarification, or another proportionate remedy where warranted. The receipt of an appeal does not guarantee a new round of peer review or reversal of the original decision.

Post-Publication Scholarly Discussion

TTS recognizes scholarly criticism, methodological reassessment, and reasoned disagreement as important elements of academic communication. Publication does not place an article beyond subsequent examination or prevent other scholars from questioning its arguments, evidence, interpretations, or conclusions.

Readers and researchers may submit substantive comments, documented criticisms, or requests for clarification concerning published work. Where appropriate, the editorial office may facilitate a response from the original authors, consider a scholarly commentary or forum contribution, or assess whether a formal publication notice is necessary.

The journal distinguishes legitimate scholarly disagreement from misconduct allegations. Critical interpretation of religious doctrines, historical narratives, philosophical systems, and institutional practices is welcome when it is grounded in evidence and presented through reasoned academic argument. Public disagreement alone does not justify correction or retraction unless the reliability or integrity of the publication is materially affected.

Copyright, Open Access, and Publication Charges

Authors retain copyright in their original scholarly contributions and grant TTS the non-exclusive rights necessary for publication, distribution, and preservation.

Published scholarly articles are made immediately available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Third-party content is subject to any separately identified rights, permissions, or applicable legal restrictions.

TTS does not charge submission or peer review fees. The standard Article Processing Charge for formally accepted Research Articles is USD 350, subject to applicable exemptions and approved waivers or reductions. Financial arrangements are separate from independent scholarly assessment.

Copyright and Licensing: Copyright & Licensing Policy

Open Access: Open Access Policy

Publication Charges: Article Processing Charges

Ethical Guidance and Policy Interpretation

The publication ethics framework of TTS is informed by recognized principles and guidance on scholarly publishing, including the core practices and relevant procedural resources of the Committee on Publication Ethics.

Reference to COPE guidance indicates the scholarly standards and ethical resources that inform the journal's policies. It does not, by itself, constitute a claim of formal COPE membership, accreditation, endorsement, or independent certification.

Publication Ethics Guidance: COPE Core Practices

Transparency and Best Practice: Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing

Reporting Ethical Concerns and Editorial Contact

Authors, reviewers, readers, institutions, and other interested parties may report credible concerns involving research integrity, plagiarism, authorship, conflicts of interest, confidentiality, editorial fairness, published inaccuracies, or other publication ethics matters.

Correspondence should identify the relevant submission or publication, describe the concern clearly, and include supporting information where available. Reports are considered according to their substance and evidence, with appropriate regard for confidentiality, procedural fairness, and the rights of affected parties.

Three Teachings Studies Editorial Office
Publisher: Panorama Scholarly Group (PSG)
Editorial Email: [email protected]
Journal Website: https://journals.panorama-sg.com/tts

Manuscript Submission: Formal manuscripts and revised files must be submitted through the journal's official online submission system. The editorial email address is intended for ethical concerns, policy clarification, complaints, appeals, and administrative assistance rather than ordinary manuscript submission.

Submission Guidelines: View Submission Requirements

Online Submission System: Access the Journal's Submission System