Peer-Review Policy

The PPCRJ employs a highly rigorous single-blind peer-review process to evaluate manuscripts for scientific accuracy, novelty, and importance. The journal accepts the following types of submissions: Articles, Letters, Brief Communications, Matters Arising, Technical Reports, Analysis, Resources, Reviews, Perspectives, and Insight articles.

 

As such, each manuscript accepted for review is subject to a formal peer-review process designed to improve research reporting while preventing overstatements of claims and results to physicians and general readership. Consequently, each submission is carefully and extensively revised and edited for accuracy, whilst ensuring authors and reviewers are not privy to each other's names and affiliations.

 

The editor ensures that the peer review process is fair and unbiased. There will be at least two external and independent reviewers who have suitable expertise to review the submission. The reviewers make a scientific assessment and a recommendation to the editor for revisions to the manuscript, which is then passed on to the authors.

 

To be published in the PPCRJ, a manuscript must provide strong evidence for its methodological choices and conclusions, as well as deliver an element of appeal to researchers across multiple disciplines, making a contribution to advancing knowledge in science and potential clinical impact.

A decision regarding publication will be made by the editor-in-chief - the possibilities include:

• Accept, with or without further revisions;
• Invite revision, before a final decision regarding publication, is made;
• Reject, and instruct authors that further work may lead to manuscript acceptance in the future and invite resubmission accordingly;
• Reject unreservedly, typically due to scientific methodological concerns ranging from technical to interpretability issues; or any factors which may render the ideas presented to be less than feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant.

 

These criteria form the basis for the initial assessment of a paper's eligibility for this publication. Once a manuscript is deemed potentially suitable for publication, the peer-review process begins.

 

The associate editor communicates the manuscript status to its authors formal email correspondence detailing questions raised in the review process and, where applicable, recommending revisions needed to meet the PPCRJ standards for publication (or rejecting, if peer-reviewers rated the manuscript at below acceptable scores). The authors respond to the associate editor with a revised manuscript and accompanying document detailing their changes. When authors resubmit a revised manuscript, the associate editor again reviews it and decides whether further peer-review is needed. The editor-in-chief arrives at a final decision regarding the manuscript publication.

 

The overall length of the review process will depend on various factors, including the availability of suitable reviewers, the need for a further review due to conflicting reviewer opinions, or other unexpected circumstances that may arise. Reviewers are requested to complete a full manuscript review within three weeks. During peer-review, all manuscripts are considered privileged communications. 

 

Without prior approval from the PPCRJ editorial office, peer-reviewers are expressly prohibited from:

 

• Copying manuscripts;
• Sharing with others; 
• Discussing the manuscript’s personal evaluations or recommendations.

 

Authors can check the status of their submission upon request. The corresponding author assigned to the submission will be notified of any decisions via email, as necessary communication becomes available.

 

Authors are given 30 days to resubmit (minor or major) revision requests. In most cases, the original reviewer is reassigned the revised manuscript submission.

Finally, it is inadvisable for authors to disclose manuscript submission or status, with the exception of co-authors and contributors, without the editor’s approval prior to publication acceptance.