Review Guidelines

Peer review System

 

PGJSRT strictly observes the double-blind peer review process to ensure the anonymity of the reviewer and the author/s to avoid impartiality during the review process. The standard Peer Review Evaluation Form and the article should be sent by the PGJSRT technical team to the respective peer reviewer who is considered expert in the field for review.

It is the responsibility of the peer reviewer to provide substantial comments and suggestions for the improvement of the paper to maintain the quality of the research article to be published by the PGJSRT. The reviewer shall take the evaluation of the general content in terms of the academic significance of the research paper, its contribution to the community, technical novelty, quality of information, and language usage. In terms of specific content, the reviewer provides an evaluation in terms of the accuracy and unity of information in the abstract, the relevance of introduction, literature, and studies to the topic as well as the coherence of the objectives; preciseness of methods used, completeness of the result and discussion, and the comprehensiveness of the conclusion and the thoroughness of the reference list. The research article sent to a peer review who is considered an expert in the field should decide either to publish without revision, accept after revision, or reject. If one of them decides to reject the paper and the other one decides to accept, this is the only time the paper should undergo another review and should be sent to the third reviewer.

Duties of Reviewers

 

Promptness. Selected reviewer who feels unqualified to review the article reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review should be impossible should notify the Editor-in-Chief to excuse from the review process.

 

Confidentiality. Manuscripts received for review must be treated with full confidentiality. Since the double-blind peer review process is being observed, the anonymity of both the author/s and reviewer should not be disclosed. The manuscript reviewed should not be posted on any website or social media as well as the result of the Reviewer’s Evaluation Form or any confidential material without prior permission from the Editor-in-Chief whether or not the submission is eventually published.

 

Standards of Objectivity. Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author/s is inappropriate. Referees should express their views clearly with supporting arguments.

 

Acknowledgment of Sources. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. Any statement that an observation, derivation, or argument had been previously reported should be accompanied by the relevant citation. A reviewer should call the Editor-in-Chief’s attention to any substantial similarity or overlap between the manuscript under consideration and any other published paper of which they have personal knowledge.

 

Editorial Board Responsibilities. Submitted papers should be evaluated based on their scientific method, technical soundness, contribution to the repository of new knowledge, and novelty. The fair decision should be observed by the Editorial Board regardless of age, nationality r, position, academic rank, educational background, culture, origin, political beliefs, and gender of the author/s. Situations that may lead to a conflict of interest should be avoided.

Peer Review Process

The following is the review process that every manuscript submitted to the journal undergoes during the course of the peer-review process.

The entire review process is performed using the online submission. Once a manuscript is submitted, the manuscript is assigned to an editor most appropriate to handle it based on the subject of the manuscript and the availability of the editors. First, the editor evaluates all manuscripts. It is rare but entirely feasible for an exceptional manuscript to be rejected at this stage. Those rejected at this stage either lack originality, have poor grammar or are outside the aims and scope of the journal. Should the editor decide not to assign reviewers but instead reject the submission, they are required to provide comments that will be sent to the author.

If the editor determines that the submitted manuscript is of sufficient quality and falls within the scope of the journal, they will assign the manuscript to a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 5 external reviewers for peer review. The deadline to complete the review process is 2-4 weeks. The reviewers will then submit their reports on the manuscripts along with their recommendations for one of the following actions to the editor:

- Accept

- Consider after Minor Changes

- Consider after Major Changes

- Reject

When all reviewers have submitted their reports, the editor can make one of the following editorial recommendations:

- Publish

- Consider after Minor Changes

- Consider after Major Changes

- Reject

If the editor recommends “Publish,” the manuscript is accepted for publication.

If the editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Only the editor reviews the revised manuscript after the minor changes have been made by the authors. Once the editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, the manuscript can be accepted.

If the editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the recommendation is communicated to the authors. The authors are expected to revise their manuscripts in accordance with the changes recommended by the reviewers and to submit their revised manuscript in a timely manner. Once the revised manuscript is submitted, the editor can then make an editorial recommendation, which can be “Publish” or “Consider after Minor Changes” or “Reject.”

If the editor recommends rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate. Additionally, if two of the reviewers recommend rejecting the manuscript, the rejection is immediate.

The editors have the authority to reject any manuscript due to the inappropriateness of its subject, lack of quality, or incorrectness of its results.

The peer review process is single blinded, which means the reviewers know who the authors of the manuscript are but the authors do not have access to the information of who the peer reviewers are.