Peer Review

The purpose of peer review is to evaluate the paper's quality and suitability for publication. For manuscripts that are deemed suitable for publication, peer review is intended to improve the quality of the written work by providing suggestions to authors and identifying any errors that need to be corrected before publication.

The PJCD implements a double-blind peer review policy wherein neither the reviewer nor the authors are informed of the other’s identity. An Associate Editor shall simultaneously invite two (2) peer reviewers to evaluate the anonymized manuscript. A third reviewer may be invited if the first two reviews have discordant recommendations or if the Editor thinks that additional reviews may be needed. Peer reviewers are selected based on their declared interest and expertise area(s), ensuring proper matching of reviewers with the submitted manuscript.

PJCD promotes COPE's Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers which set out the basic principles and standards to which reviewers should adhere during the peer review process.

Peer reviewers are asked specific guide questions from a checklist depending on the manuscript type. These checklists, which are based on the EQUATOR Network Reporting Guidelines, assist reviewers in properly judging the quality of the study and are used to inform their recommendation on the manuscript.  

Reviewers focus on the quality and content of the manuscript, guided by the checklists, and not on any grammar, spelling, or punctuation mistakes that they may encounter as such can be addressed during copy editing for accepted manuscripts. The timeline for reviewers to submit their completed review is three (3) weeks but may be extended upon request of the reviewer. After editorial review, the comments of reviewers are forwarded anonymously to the author for due consideration, including any Reviewer File uploaded. In general, PJCD does not alter reviewer comments unless for tone and policy compliance.

Depending on the editorial decision, authors are expected to respond to the comments and revise the manuscript accordingly, albeit they do not necessarily have to follow all the recommendations. Authors use the Author Response Form to summarize their response. The timeline to submit revisions is 2-3 weeks, depending on the type of revision requested, with extension given upon request of the author.

The revised manuscript is then re-evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and a final decision is given.