Peer Review Policy
PJLS follows a rigorous process of peer review. This practice is carried out to ensure that only the original, standard and quality work find a place in this journal. The peer review process is highly objective and is followed around the globe by all reputable research journals. This process is essential for good scholarly publications. Our reviewers put huge efforts to maintain the quality and high standards of work in PJLS. The peer review process which PJLS follows is outlined below.
Initial manuscript evaluation
After the submission of manuscript, the editor evaluates all the submitted manuscripts. All those manuscripts which do not fall in the scope of PJLS, are not original, are plagiarized, have serious methodological flaws or have unbearable language errors get rejected in this first step. Those manuscripts which meet minimum criteria tend to be sent to at least two reviewers for further evaluation.
Type of Peer Review
PJLS employs double blind reviewing. In this type of review, both the reviewer and the author become anonymous for each other throughout this stage
How the referee is selected
The reviewers, in most cases, are matched to the paper according to their expertise. Fortunately, PJLS has a highly qualified team of reviewers and the PJLS reviewers’ database is being updated on regular basis.
In this step, the reviewer is requested to evaluate the manuscript that whether the manuscript is original. They also evaluate the research methodology adopted in the manuscript, the procedure of data collection and of data analysis, the issues of validity and reliability. They are required to evaluate if the results are clearly presented and are aligned to the conclusions. They also review the way previous research has been referenced and its relevance. Language correctness is not an essential part of this step, however, the reviewer can evaluate and make suggestions to language in the manuscript.
The duration of review process
The duration required for review depends on the response of the reviewers. If the review report from a reviewer is delayed or both the reviewers have contradictory evaluation then the paper would be sent to another expert for the opinion. The decision of the editor would be sent to the corresponding author with the recommendations sent from the reviewers. The authors are required to incorporate the changes to the manuscript according to the recommendations of the reviewers. After revision, the manuscript would be sent to the same reviewers for another evaluation of the manuscript.
The final decision of the reviewers of acceptance or rejection of the manuscript would be sent to the author along with the comments or recommendations (if any). The editor’s decision is final. The editor is responsible for the final decision, whether to accept or reject the article.