PMRP relies on the expertise and dedication of its editors and reviewers to maintain the highest academic and ethical standards. The review process is double-blind, ensuring impartial evaluation of manuscripts. Reviewers are expected to assess submissions objectively, focusing on originality, scientific rigor, clarity of presentation, and relevance to the journal’s scope.
When reviewing, consider:
- Originality & Significance – Does the work contribute new knowledge or insights?
- Methodology – Are the research design, data collection, and analysis sound and well-documented?
- Clarity & Structure – Is the manuscript well-organized, with logical flow and clear language?
- Figures, Tables & References – Are they relevant, accurate, and properly formatted?
- Ethical Compliance – Does the study meet COPE guidelines, with proper citations and no evidence of plagiarism?
Constructive feedback is essential. Comments should help authors to improve their work by highlighting strengths and addressing weaknesses. Criticism must be professional, respectful, and supported by clear reasoning. Reviewers must avoid personal bias and must not ask authors to cite their own articles, add their names, or include colleagues during revision. Any potential conflicts of interest should be declared immediately.
Timeliness is also vital. PMRP strives for an efficient review process; reviewers should submit their evaluations within the agreed timeline, typically 2–4 weeks. If more time is needed, prompt communication with the editorial office is expected. By adhering to these principles, editors and reviewers uphold PMRP’s mission of publishing high-quality, trustworthy research while fostering a supportive scholarly environment.