pdpublishers.com

pdpublishers
reliable
  • Login
  • Register
Menu
reliable
  • Login
  • Register
pdpublishers
Menu

For Reviewers

Menu

Peer review is the root of academic and scientific publishing, ensuring the integrity, credibility, and reliability of published work. At PDP we are dedicated to upholding a meticulous and impartial evaluation process for all submitted manuscripts.

Every submission undergoes an initial technical assessment by the journal’s managing editor to verify adherence to standard formatting guidelines. Manuscripts meeting these criteria are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief (EiC) for a decision on whether they qualify for the peer review process. Submissions deemed suitable proceed to peer review, while others are either returned to the authors for revision or declined.

  1. The Reviewer’s Criteria

At PDP, we are dedicated to maintaining rigorous and ethical standards in manuscript evaluation. Reviewers are expected to provide prompt and transparent evaluations in accordance with COPE guidelines. To uphold the quality and integrity of the peer review process, all reviewers must meet specific criteria:
arrowGraph

  1. Diversified Reviewers

Diversity among peer reviewers is a cornerstone of our commitment to maintaining quality through the rigorous peer review process. By selecting reviewers from various backgrounds, disciplines, and demographics, we strengthen the integrity and effectiveness of our system. The editors at PDP prioritize choosing reviewers from diverse regions, ensuring a well-rounded and equitable evaluation of submissions.

  1. Peer Review Model

All journals adhere to a single-blind peer-review process system, ensuring that the identities of reviewers remain confidential from the authors. Research articles, reviews, and all other article types submitted at PDP undergo a rigorous peer review process, typically evaluated by at least two-three independent, peer reviewers. Additionally, all manuscripts are meticulously screened for plagiarism using Turnitin software to identify overlapping or similar content, as part of the in-house editorial review.

All submissions made to PDP are initially reviewed for completeness before being evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief, who further decides their suitability for the peer review process. In cases where the Editor-in-Chief is listed as an author or has a potential conflict of interest with a manuscript, another member of the Editorial Board is appointed to oversee the review process. Academic Editor, typically the Editor-in-Chief or a conflict-free member of the Editorial Board, considers peer review reports when making both preliminary and final decisions, though they are not obligated to follow the recommendations provided. A significant concern raised by a single peer reviewer or the Editor may lead to the rejection of the manuscript. Authors are provided with comprehensive peer review reports alongside the editorial decision.

Editorials, Book Reviews, Commentaries and other manuscripts that do not report primary research or secondary analysis of primary research may be accepted without any peer review.

  1. The Reviewers’ Selection

The Editor-in-Chief has a huge role to play in the selection of peer reviewers. Typically, the Editors-in-Chief recommend 3-4 reviewers from the Editorial Board, Reviewer’ Panel, or relevant experts in the field. Even the author of the manuscript is also given the liberty to suggest 2-3 potential reviewers for the review process. The suggestions are not necessarily taken but they do help in speeding up the process. During manuscript submission, authors can list potential reviewers to exclude from the peer review process as well. In some cases, the Editorial Office identifies additional qualified reviewers through trusted databases such as PubMed, Scopus, or Web of Science, ensuring their expertise aligns closely with the manuscript’s scope and subject matter.

  1. The Reviewer’s Invitation

The reviewers who best match the scope of the manuscript are invited to the review process. They are asked if they are available to review the full paper within the given timeline and are provided with the manuscript’s title along with its abstract. The reviewers can:
  • Accept the invitation within the given timeline.
  • Accept the invitation but with an extended timeline.
  • Refuse immediately.
  • Refuse and recommend other reviewers.
infographi

  1. The Reviewer’s Agreement

Reviewer is provided with a complete manuscript soon after they accept to review the paper within the given time frame. The expected timeline of the review process is 2 weeks starting from the date of invitation. However; if the reviewers have any other prior commitments to meet then they are required to ask for an extension (if possible) immediately. It takes 3 weeks on average for a review once the submission is made.

  1. Reporting Guidelines

Any remarks regarding the submitted manuscript must be provided through the designated link in the OJS system. The remarks and the critical evaluation of the given paper’s methodology plus results must always be provided in the English language. Reviewers must check the compliance of the guidelines as specified by the author of the paper.

  1. Rate the Manuscript

The adherence of the paper to the journal’s scope, its clarity, comprehensiveness, and quality are reviewed by the selected reviewers. The visual images and the flow of the sections are also assessed along with the analysis of the authentication of the references. Each section of the paper has to be individually reviewed with detailed remarks for the author as well as the editors. The remarks for the editors are not disclosed to the author.

  1. Final Recommendation

Reviewers are expected to provide a definitive recommendation for each manuscript based on their evaluation. The possible decisions include:
  • Accept with Minor Changes
  • Accept with Major Changes
  • Reject with Recommendation for Resubmission
  • Reject Without Resubmission
These recommendations are pivotal in determining the manuscript’s outcome. Review reports are submitted to the Editor-in-Chief or handling editor, who compiles key suggestions for improvement and communicates them to the authors. Manuscripts requiring substantial revisions will be re-evaluated by the same reviewers after the revised version is submitted. In cases involving ethical concerns or suspected misconduct, reviewers are instructed to immediately halt the review process and inform the Editorial Office for further action.

  1. Reviewers’ Benefits

We value the dedication and voluntary efforts of our reviewers in conducting peer reviews. To express our gratitude, we offer the following benefits:

Certificate of Appreciation: Awarded upon the completion of each peer review.

APC Discounts: Eligible after reviewing a minimum ofthree manuscripts.

Editorial Board Opportunities: Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board after one year of exemplary performance.

Service Discounts: Special discounts on graphic enhancement and language editing services.

  1. Conflict Of Interest

In case; a reviewer finds any sort of conflict of interest then the reviewer has to preset the conflict in the email to the journal’s editor instantly.  Some of the potential conflicts of interest are (but are not limited to):
  • Affiliated Conflict: The reviewer is affiliated with the same institution as one of the authors.
  • Collaborative Conflict: The reviewer, in the last five years, has co-authored, collaborated, co-founded, or maintained academic connections with any of the authors.
  • Personal Relationship Conflict: The reviewer has some form of personal connection, rivalry, or animosity towards any of the authors.
  • Financial Conflict of Interest: The author-reviewer stands to gain or lose financially from the publication of the paper in any form.
  • Non-Financial Conflict: The author-reviewer has other conflicts of interest, political, religious, ideological, or academic ones.
  • Disclosure Requirement of a Conflict: Reviewers disclose any actual or possible conflict of interest that could compromise impartiality towards the submitted paper.

  1. The Confidentiality Policy

PDP upholds the highest standards of confidentiality throughout the manuscript review process to safeguard authors’ intellectual property and professional reputations. Reviewers and editors are strictly prohibited from disclosing any manuscript details, review status, or feedback without prior authorization. Reviewer identities remain anonymous, and manuscripts cannot be copied or shared without explicit permission from the editor. Additionally, public discussion or utilization of an author’s ideas prior to publication is strictly forbidden. This stringent policy underscores PDP’s commitment to respecting authors’ rights and maintaining the integrity of the peer review process.

  1. The Peer-review Fraud Handling

In order to maintain the integrity of the journal and the scholarly articles; it is important to conduct a thorough peer review process. By sticking to the COPE guidelines, any form of peer review manipulation can be avoided. The set protocols help in dealing with peer-review misconduct:

  1. Reviewer Citation Manipulation

Reviewer citation manipulation is an unethical practice where reviewers suggest authors cite articles that are irrelevant to the topic being reviewed, solely to increase their own citation count. To maintain the integrity of the peer review process, reviewers are encouraged to recommend only references that are directly relevant to the article under review. This practice undermines the quality and impartiality of scientific publications, which the peer review process is designed to uphold. Editors are advised to follow COPE advice guidelines if instances of citation manipulation are identified

  1. Reviewer Registration

Interested in joining PDP as a reviewer? Submit your request by completing the reviewer registration form reviewers’ registration form. Your profile will be reviewed by the Editor, and if it meets the journal’s criteria, you will be invited to review articles.