primarkconsultancy.com

primarkconsultancy
  • Login
  • Register
Menu
reliable
  • Login
  • Register
primarkconsultancy
Menu

For Reviewers

Peer review is fundamental to the academic and scientific publishing process, ensuring the quality, credibility, and trustworthiness of published research. At PM, we are committed to maintaining a thorough and unbiased evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts.

Each manuscript undergoes an initial technical review by the managing editor to ensure it aligns with the journal’s formatting requirements. Manuscripts that meet these standards are then forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC), who determines whether they are suitable for the peer review process. Submissions that meet the criteria proceed to peer review, while others are either returned for revision or rejected.

  1. The Reviewer’s Criteria

At PM, we prioritize upholding ethical and rigorous standards in manuscript evaluation. Reviewers are expected to provide timely and transparent assessments in compliance with COPE guidelines. To maintain the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers must meet certain criteria:
arrowGraph

  1. Diversified Reviewers

We emphasize the importance of diversity in our reviewer pool, selecting individuals from varied backgrounds, disciplines, and regions. This enhances the fairness and thoroughness of the evaluation process.

  1. Peer Review Model

Our journal follows a single-blind peer review process, where the identities of reviewers are kept confidential from the authors. Submitted research articles, reviews, and other types of content undergo a comprehensive peer review by at least two or three independent reviewers. Manuscripts are also checked for plagiarism using Turnitin to detect any similarities with existing work.

All submissions are first assessed for completeness by the managing editor, who, along with the EiC, determines whether the manuscript qualifies for peer review. In cases where the EiC is listed as an author or has a potential conflict of interest, another member of the Editorial Board is tasked with overseeing the review. The Academic Editor, typically the EiC or an impartial member of the Editorial Board, considers the peer review feedback when making both preliminary and final decisions. While peer reviewers’ suggestions are influential, the final decision rests with the editor. Any significant issues raised during the review may result in the manuscript being rejected. Authors receive the peer review reports along with the editorial decision.

Editorials, book reviews, and commentaries may be accepted without peer review, as they do not involve primary research or secondary analysis.

  1. Selection of Reviewers

The Editor-in-Chief plays a pivotal role in selecting reviewers. Typically, the EiC recommends 3-4 reviewers from the Editorial Board, the Reviewer Panel, or relevant experts in the field. Authors may also suggest 2-3 potential reviewers, though these suggestions are not guaranteed to be accepted. Authors may also list reviewers they wish to exclude. Additionally, the Editorial Office may identify other qualified reviewers through trusted databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science.

  1. Invitation to Review

Reviewers who are deemed most suitable for evaluating a manuscript are invited to participate in the peer review process. They are asked if they can complete the review within the given timeline and provided with the manuscript’s title and abstract. Reviewers have the option to:

  • Accept the invitation within the given timeline.
  • Accept with an extended timeline.
  • Decline the invitation.
  • Decline and suggest alternative reviewers.

 

infographi

  1. Agreement and Review Timeline

Once a reviewer accepts the invitation, they receive the full manuscript and are expected to complete their review within two weeks, unless an extension is requested due to prior commitments. On average, reviews are completed within three weeks of submission.

  1. Reporting Guidelines

Reviewers are required to provide feedback through the designated platform in the OJS system. Their evaluation must be in English and focus on the manuscript’s methodology, results, and adherence to the relevant reporting standards. These may include:

  • CONSORT for randomized controlled trials.
  • TREND for non-randomized trials.
  • PRISMA for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • CARE for case reports, and others as specified.

  1. Manuscript Evaluation

Reviewers assess the manuscript’s alignment with the journal’s scope, its clarity, quality, and comprehensiveness. They also evaluate the accuracy of visual elements, the flow of sections, and the authenticity of references. Detailed feedback is provided for both authors and editors, with feedback for editors kept confidential.

  1. Final Recommendation

Reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept with Minor Changes
  • Accept with Major Changes
  • Reject with Recommendation for Resubmission
  • Reject Without Resubmission

 

These recommendations guide the editor’s decision. Manuscripts requiring significant revisions are re-evaluated by the same reviewers. In cases of suspected ethical concerns, the review process is halted, and the Editorial Office is notified.

  1. Reviewers’ Benefits

We greatly value the contributions of our reviewers. To show our appreciation, we offer:

  • A Certificate of Appreciation upon completion of each review.
  • Discounts on APCs after reviewing a minimum of three manuscripts.
  • Potential invitations to join the Editorial Board after one year of exemplary review work.
  • Special discounts on services such as graphic enhancement and language editing.

  1. Conflict Of Interest

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest that may affect their impartiality. This includes:

  • Institutional affiliation conflicts.
  • Collaborative relationships with authors.
  • Personal relationships that may bias the review.
  • Financial or non-financial interests that could influence the review process.

  1. The Confidentiality Policy

PM maintains strict confidentiality throughout the review process to protect authors’ intellectual property and reputations. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from disclosing any details about the manuscript or review status without prior permission. The identities of reviewers are kept anonymous, and manuscripts cannot be shared or copied without the editor’s consent.

  1. Handling Peer-Review Fraud

To ensure the integrity of the review process, we follow COPE guidelines to address any form of peer-review misconduct, whether suspected during or after the review process. This includes addressing reviewer citation manipulation, where reviewers suggest irrelevant references to boost their own citation count.

  1. Reviewer Registration

If you are interested in becoming a PM reviewer, please complete the reviewer registration form. Your profile will be reviewed by the editor, and if suitable, you will be invited to review articles.