Peer Review Policy and Process

All research articles, and most other article types, published in the PJP go through a peer review. Reviewers are therefore required to respect the confidentiality of the peer review process and not reveal any details of a manuscript or its review, during or after the peer review process. If reviewers wish to involve a colleague in the review process, they should first obtain permission from the Editor.

The acceptance criteria for all papers are the quality, clarity and originality of the research and its significance to our readers. Manuscripts should be written in a clear, concise and direct style. The manuscript should not have been published, in whole or in part, nor submitted for publication elsewhere.

All submitted manuscripts are initially reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief and can be rejected at this stage, without being sent to reviewers. Final acceptance or rejection rests with the Editor-In-Chief, who reserves the right to refuse any material for publication.

The PJP follows a rigorous blind peer review, which means that both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process. The PJP will send manuscripts to outside reviewers selected from an extensive database.

All manuscripts that do not comply with the instructions for authors can be rejected before being reviewed. Final acceptance is the responsibility of the Editor-in-Chief.

Letters to the Editor or Editorials will be evaluated by the Editorial Board, but may also require an external review.

In the evaluation, the manuscripts can be:

A) Accepted without changes

B) Reevaluated after modifications

C) Rejected

Upon receipt of the manuscript, the Editor-in-Chief sends it to two reviewers if the manuscript is in accordance with the instructions to authors and meets the editorial policy.

Within 30 days, the reviewer should respond to the Editor-in-Chief indicating their comments on the manuscript and suggesting acceptance, review or rejection of the work. Within 10 days, the Editorial Board will make a decision which may be: accept the manuscript without modifications; sending the reviewers' comments to authors for manuscript review; rejection.

When changes are proposed, authors have 30 days (that may be extended at the request of the authors) to submit a new revised version of the manuscript, incorporating the comments of the reviewers and of the editorial board. Authors have to answer all the questions and also send a revised version of the manuscript, with the inserted amendments highlighted in a different colour.

The Editor-in-Chief has 10 days to make the decision on the new version: reject or accept the new version, or refer it to a new appreciation for one or more reviewers.

In case of acceptance, in any of the mentioned phases, it will be communicated to the Corresponding Author.

In the proofreading phase, substantive changes to the manuscript will not be accepted. The inclusion of these changes can motivate the rejection of the manuscript by decision of the Editor-in-Chief.

Although editors and proofreaders develop efforts to ensure the scientific and technical quality of the manuscripts, the ultimate responsibility of the content (including accuracy and precision of the observations, as well as opinions expressed) is the sole responsibility of the authors.

Below you can see an image of PJP’s peer review workflow.