For Reviewers

Applications to review

We're really grateful to the achievers who are ready to  join our community of peer reviewers.

You can  apply below if you wish to become a reviewer for specific JoPC journals.

You may also be contacted with requests to review for other journals in your subject area. Our Editors select reviewers on a manuscript-by-manuscript basis. In each case, the most relevant scientists will be cordially invited accordingly

Editorial Process

Peer review is an essential part of the publication process and it ensures that JoPC maintains the highest quality standards for its published papers. All manuscripts submitted to our journals are strictly and thoroughly peer-reviewed by experts.

Immediately after submission, manuscript will be checked by the experts and a suitable academic editor will be notified of the submission and invited to check the manuscript and recommend reviewers. Academic editors can decide to continue with the peer review process, reject a manuscript, or request revisions before peer-review. In the case of continuing the peer review process, the Editorial Board will organize the peer review, which is performed by independent experts, and collect at least two review reports per manuscript. We ask authors for sufficient revisions (with a second round of peer review, when necessary) before a final decision is made. The final decision is made by an academic editor (usually the Editor-in-Chief/Editorial Board Member of a journal or the Guest Editor of a Special Issue). Accepted manuscripts are then copy-edited and English-edited internally. To help authors receive timely reviews, reviewer reports should be submitted via the manuscript tracking system on or before the agreed deadline

Reviewer's Role and Responsibilities
Reviewers should meet the following criteria:
  • hold a Ph.D. (or MD for medical fields), preferably with postdoctoral experience,
  • be an active researcher,
  • possess official and recognized affiliation (University or Research Institute) relevant experience and have a proven publication record in the field of the submitted paper,
  • not hold any conflicts of interest with the authors, including if they have published together in the last five years.
  • Reviewers who accept to review a manuscript are expected to
  • Have the necessary expertise to judge the scientific quality of the manuscript,
  • Provide quality review reports and remain responsive throughout the peer review process
  • Maintain standards of professionalism and ethics.
Reviewers’ Benefits
  • Being a peer reviewer opens doors to incredible opportunities
  • Peer review services will enhance your knowledge of professional standards and quickly earn the respect of your peers.
  • Certificate will be provided to the Reviewers for their contribution to the journal.
  • Reviewers' name will be listed in the journal website.
  • Enjoy special offers on Article Processing Charges if you want to publish your papers in the journal.
Publication ethics

In order to review the publication ethics and virtue, click here

Review reports

Below are few instructions regarding the review report for your consideration:

  • Read the complete article and closely review the figures, tables, data, and methods.
  • Please ensure your comments are in detailed form so that the authors may correctly understand and address the points you raise.

Review report must contain the following:

  • A brief summary (one short paragraph) outlining the aim of the paper, its main contributions and strengths.
    General concept comments.
  • Article: highlighting areas of weakness, methodological inaccuracies, missing controls, etc.
  • Review: commenting on the completeness of the review topic covered, the relevance of the review topic, the gap in knowledge identified, the appropriateness of references, etc.
  • These comments are focused on the scientific content of the manuscript and should be specific enough for the authors to be able to respond.

Some core aspects that should be critiqued by reviewers may include:

  • Are the research questions valid?
  • Is the sample size sufficient?
  • Is there necessary ethical approval and/or consent and was the research ethical?
  • Are the methods and study design appropriate for answering the research question?
  • Do the experiments have appropriate controls?
  • Are any statistical tests used appropriate and correctly reported?
  • Are there any inappropriate citations, for example, not supporting the claim being made or too many citations to the authors' own articles?
  • Is the abstract an accurate summary of the research and results, without spin?
  • Is the language clear and understandable?
  • Do the results support the conclusions?
  • Are the figures and tables clear and do they accurately represent the results?
  • Has previous research by the authors and others been discussed and have those results been compared to the current results?
Confidentiality

Manuscripts undergo single- or double-blind peer review so till the time manuscripts are under review process it should be strictly confidential. Reviewers must not share content of the manuscript, including the Abstract or discuss their content with anyone outside the peer review process.

Reviewers should also be careful not to reveal their identity to the authors, either in their comments or in metadata for reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format. Reviewers may, on request, consult with colleagues from their research group trusting that the confidentiality of the manuscript is maintained. Reviewers should first contact on [email protected] or the Academic Editor handling the manuscript and note the name of the colleague(s) in the ‘Comments to the editor’ section of their report.

Conflicts of interest
Reviewers should decline to review a submission when they:
  • Have a recent publication or current submission with any author
  • Share or have recently shared an affiliation with any author
  • Collaborate or have recently collaborated with any author
  • Have a close personal connection to any author
  • Have a financial interest in the subject of the work
  • Feel unable to be objective

Reviewers must declare any remaining interests in the ‘Confidential’ section of the review form, which will be considered by the editor. Reviewers must declare if they have previously discussed the manuscript with the authors.