- Invitation to review
- Declaring competing interests
- Reviewing a manuscript, you have previously reviewed
- Time to review
- Writing the review
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, Editorial Manager. Accept or refuse the invitation using the links in the email. Accept an invitation only if you have the required expertise, time, and objectivity to offer an unbiased evaluation of the research.
Declaring competing interests
A conflicting interest interferes with or is seen to interfere with, a comprehensive and impartial evaluation of a submission. Accept no review assignments if you have a conflicting interest or cannot provide an objective assessment. If you are unclear if your relationship qualifies as a competing interest, get help from the journal office. If we still ask you to finish the review, please indicate your competing interest when you submit your evaluation.
Maintain the confidentiality of manuscripts and communications, and do not 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.
Reviewing a manuscript, you have previously reviewed
If you reviewed the article for another publication, treat the paper as a new submission unless otherwise advised. Remember that it may have been updated since the last time you saw it, and PMPJ's publishing standards may differ from those of the other Journal. When submitting your review, inform the Editor that you had reviewed an earlier version of the paper in another journal.
Time to review
Attempt to finish your review within the specified number of days. Please email us as soon as possible if you require additional time to complete the review.
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.