•  
  •  
 

Contents

Invitation to review

PMPJ editors choose potential reviewers based on their experience in research areas related to the submission under consideration. Reviewer invites are distributed through email via the Journal's submission system and Editorial Manager. Reviewers accept or refuse the invitation using the links in the email. Acceptance of an invitation only should be done if the reviewer has the required expertise, time, and objectivity to offer an unbiased evaluation of the research.

{ top }

Declaring competing interests

A conflicting interest that interferes with providing an objective assessment or is seen to interfere with the submission evaluation should not be accepted by the reviewer. If reviewers are unclear if their relationship qualifies as a competing interest, they should get help from the journal office. If we still ask reviewer to finish the review, they should indicate their competing interest when they submit their evaluation.

{ top }

Confidentiality

Reviewers have to maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and communications, and not to discuss information about submissions with anyone else unless previously agreed upon with the Editor. We anticipate reviewers will not utilize any materials or information from the peer review process.

{ top }

Reviewing a manuscript that have been previously reviewed

IIf a reviewer previously reviewed an article for another publication, they should treat the paper as a new submission unless otherwise advised. It may have been updated since the last time the reviewer saw it, and PMPJ's publishing standards may differ from those of the other Journal. When submitting a review, inform the Editor that you had reviewed an earlier version of the paper in another journal.

{ top }

Time to review

Reviewers are encouraged to finish their review report within the specified number of days. Please email the editor as soon as possible if you require additional time to complete the review.

{ top }

Writing the review

The review's objective is to offer the editors a professional assessment of the reliability and quality of the manuscript under consideration. Additionally, the review should give authors clear recommendations on enhancing their works so that PMPJ will publish them. Take into account the following: What are the paper's key assertions, and how important are they to the field? Are the assertions correctly positioned about the earlier literature? Has the literature been treated fairly by the authors? Do the data and analyses completely support the statements?

What is more, is evidence required if not? Does the study itself have enough potential to warrant encouraging the authors to submit a revised version of the manuscript is considered inappropriate for publication in its current form? Do the methodology's specifics allow for the replication of the experiments? Is any software produced by the authors accessible for free? Is the text arranged and written so that non-specialists can understand it? Although the editors respect your right to privacy, any criticism that could improve the work should be directed at the authors.

{ top }