Review Guidelines

Peer Review Process

PJD uses an online submission and review system. The submission and peer review of every article must be managed using this system and based on following Peer Review Policy.

PJD Editorial Board is responsible for the selection of papers and the selection of reviewers.
Articles must typically be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers.
Reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double blind review)
Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references.
The final decision of manuscript acceptance shall be made by the Editorial Board according to reviewers critical comments.
Section Editor will send the final decision regarding the submission to the corresponding author based on the reviewer’s recommendation.
PJD Editorial Board shall protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers.

Peer Review Guideline

Before you accept or decline an invitation to review, consider the following questions:

Does the article match your area of expertise? Only accept if you feel you can provide a high quality review.
Do you have a potential conflict of interest? Disclose this to the editor when you respond.
Do you have time? Reviewing can be a lot of work – before you commit, make sure you can meet the deadline.

Respond to the invitation as soon as you can – delay in your decision slows down the review process, whether you agree to review or not. If you decline the invitation, provide suggestions for alternative reviewers.

Review Comment

Your review will help the editor decide whether or not to publish the article. Giving your overall opinion and general observations of the article is essential. Your comments should be courteous and constructive, and should not include any personal remarks or personal details including your name.

Providing insight into any deficiencies is important. You should explain and support your judgement so that both editors and authors are able to fully understand the reasoning behind your comments. You should indicate whether your comments are your own opinion or are reflected by the data.

Reviewer Checklist

Give your main impressions of the article, including whether it is novel and interesting, whether it has a sufficient impact and adds to the knowledge base.
Give specific comments and suggestions, including about layout and format, title, abstract, introduction, method, statistical errors, results, conclusion/discussion, language and references.
If you suspect plagiarism, fraud or have other ethical concerns, raise your suspicions with the editor, providing as much detail as possible. Visit PJD's Publication Ethics webpage or the COPE guidelines for more information.
According to COPE guidelines, reviewers must treat any manuscripts they are asked to review as confidential documents. Since peer review is confidential, they must not share the review or information about the review with anyone without the agreement of the editors and authors involved. This applies both during and after the publication process.
Any suggestion that the author includes citations to reviewers’ (or their associates’) work must be for genuine scientific reasons and not with the intention of increasing reviewers’ citation counts or enhancing the visibility of reviewers’ work (or that of their associates).

The final decision

PJD Editor ultimately decides whether to accept or reject the article. The editor will weigh all views and may call for a third opinion or ask the author for a revised paper before making a decision.

Peer Review Policy

PJD uses an online submission and review system. The submission and peer review of every article must be managed using this system and based on following Peer Review Policy.

Selection of papers

PJD Editorial Board is responsible for ensuring that the peer-review process is fair and timely. This selection of papers should be based on the scientific quality of the content and the topic should clearly fall within the focus and scope of PJD Journal.

Selection of reviewers

PJD Editorial Board will select reviewers who have suitable expertise in the field and must review all disclosures of potential conflicts of interest made by reviewers in order to determine whether there is any potential for bias.

Research articles must typically be reviewed by at least two independent reviewers, and where necessary PJD editorial board will seek additional opinion such as adding third reviewer or so on.

PJD Editorial Board must follow best practice guidance provided by the Publisher on avoiding the selection of fraudulent peer reviewers.

Review process and transparency

Reviewing process will consider novelty, objectivity, method, scientific impact, conclusion, and references. Reviewers' comments will be sent to the corresponding author for necessary actions and responses. Editorial Board will evaluate the reviewer’s comment and then send the final decision regarding the submission to the corresponding author based on reviewer’s recommendation.

PJD Editorial Board, author, and reviewers shall use the electronic submission system for all journal communications and make appropriate use of PJD plagiarism screening using Turnitin Similarity Check.

Confidentiality

PJD Editorial Board shall protect the confidentiality of all material submitted to the journal and all communications with reviewers. PJD editorial board will also made sure that reviewers are unaware of the identity of the authors, and authors are also unaware of the identity of reviewers (double blind review method).

Disclosure and conflicts of interest

PJD editorial board shall follow the Journal’s policy relating to the disclosure of conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.

Authors and Reviewers will receive support and guidance from PJD Editorial Board throughout the publishing proc