Review Process
Our editorial team performs a primary assessment of each submitted manuscript based on the interest, timeliness, and importance of the topic, the use of the scientific method, presentation clarity, and relevance to readers.
If the submitted manuscript is considered suitable to be sent to peer review, it will be reviewed by members of the PCDP’s editorial board or other equally reputable specialists. These individuals are recruited by the editorial team based on their expertise and standing in their field. Reviewers are required to disclose potential conflicts of interest that may affect their ability to provide an unbiased review of an article.
Types of Peer Review
Peer review is designed to assess the quality, validity, and often the originality of articles for publication. Its ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor-quality articles. The peer review system can be divided into single-blind, double-blind, and triple-blind reviews.
In this type of review, the names of the reviewers are hidden from the author. This is the traditional method of reviewing and is the most common type by far. Points to consider regarding single blind review include:
Both the reviewer and the author are anonymous in this model. Some advantages of this model are listed below.
But bear in mind that despite the above, reviewers can often identify the author through their writing style, subject matter, or self-citation – it is exceedingly difficult to guarantee total author anonymity. More information for authors can be found in our double-blind peer review guidelines.
With triple-blind review, reviewers are anonymous and the author’s identity is unknown to both the reviewers and the editor. Articles are anonymized at the submission stage and are handled in such a way as to minimize any potential bias towards the author(s). However, it should be noted that:
The manuscript should be rejected when it does not sufficiently meet the journal’s standards of novelty, relevance, or suitability. Rejection may also be appropriate when the manuscript is poorly written, is intended for a substantially different readership, or requires extensive revisions that cannot reasonably be completed within the limited revision period before the next review round. Reviewers should clearly explain the reasons for recommending rejection in their comments. Authors should not be encouraged to resubmit manuscripts that cannot be adequately improved or are fundamentally unsuitable for publication.
The manuscript may be accepted when it meets the journal’s standards and does not require any substantive revisions. Only minor corrections, such as typographical or formatting errors, may remain and should be addressed as indicated by the reviewers. No further review cycle is required, and the manuscript can proceed to publication essentially in its current form.
A major revision recommendation should be made when the manuscript meets the basic requirements of novelty and relevance but contains substantial problems that require significant modification. These issues may involve technical, methodological, structural, or language-related aspects of the manuscript. The required changes are substantial enough to warrant a complete second review by the original reviewers before a final publication decision is made.
A minor revision recommendation is appropriate when the manuscript meets the criteria of novelty, relevance, and overall quality but requires a limited number of necessary corrections. These revisions generally involve relatively minor technical or substantive issues rather than simple typographical or grammatical errors. Following completion of the requested changes, the editor may conduct a final assessment before making the manuscript eligible for publication.
The peer review process in PCDP is a Single-Blinded Review.
The review process is shown in the below figure.
1.Critically and constructively evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed comments to help the authors improve the quality of their work.
2.Submit all required information and review materials within the deadlines established by the journal.
3.Suggest alternative reviewers to the editor if they are unable to review the manuscript for any reason.
4.Notify the editor of any suspected research misconduct or ethical concerns identified during the review process.
5.Review revised versions of the manuscript when requested by the editor and when further evaluation is necessary.
6.Provide the editor with a clear recommendation regarding the manuscript’s suitability for publication in the journal.
7.Disclose any potential conflicts of interest related to the authors, the subject matter, or the content of the manuscript.
8.Maintain strict confidentiality regarding the manuscript and all information obtained during the review process.
9.Refrain from using any ideas, data, findings, or other information contained in the manuscript for personal or professional purposes prior to publication.
10.Avoid communicating directly with the authors, even if their identities become known to the reviewer.
11.Maintain reviewer anonymity and refrain from disclosing their identity to the authors.
12.Do not transfer, delegate, or share the assigned manuscript with another reviewer without the editor’s permission.
13.Contribute to ensuring that the manuscript meets appropriate standards of scientific quality, originality, and integrity.
14.Inform the editor if they become aware that the manuscript is simultaneously under consideration by another journal or publication.
15.Prepare and submit the review report exclusively in English.
16.Write a commentary for publication related to the reviewed manuscript when appropriate or requested by the journal.