13. Peer Review Policy

Purpose

The Pakistan Journal of Gastroenterology (PJG) is committed to ensuring the publication of high-quality, original, and scientifically sound research through a fair, independent, confidential, and unbiased peer-review process. Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the integrity, credibility, and quality of scholarly publishing.

The Journal follows the recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).

13.1 Peer Review Model

The Journal operates a Double-Blind Peer Review system.

Under this model:

  • Authors do not know the identity of reviewers.
  • Reviewers do not know the identity of authors.
  • Editorial staff ensure that identifying information is removed before peer review.

This process helps promote objective, impartial, and unbiased manuscript evaluation.

13.2 Initial Editorial Screening

Upon submission, every manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment to determine whether it:

  • Falls within the scope of the Journal.
  • Complies with the Journal's Author Guidelines.
  • Meets ethical and reporting standards.
  • Contains all required documents.
  • Successfully passes plagiarism screening.
  • Demonstrates sufficient scientific quality for peer review.

Manuscripts that fail to meet these requirements may be returned to the authors or rejected without external review.

13.3 Reviewer Selection

Eligible manuscripts are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers with appropriate subject expertise.

Reviewers are selected based on:

  • Academic qualifications.
  • Research experience.
  • Publication record.
  • Subject expertise.
  • Absence of conflicts of interest.

The Editorial Office strives to avoid reviewer bias and conflicts of interest during reviewer selection.

13.4 Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide objective, constructive, and evidence-based comments.
  • Evaluate the originality and scientific quality of the manuscript.
  • Assess the methodology, statistical analysis, interpretation of results, and conclusions.
  • Identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, duplicate publication, or research misconduct where suspected.
  • Maintain strict confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Declare any conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment.
  • Complete the review within the requested timeframe.

Reviewers must not use unpublished information for personal or professional benefit.

13.5 Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and novelty.
  • Scientific importance.
  • Relevance to the Journal's scope.
  • Study design and methodology.
  • Statistical analysis.
  • Ethical compliance.
  • Clarity of presentation.
  • Quality of figures and tables.
  • Validity of conclusions.
  • Appropriateness of references.

13.6 Editorial Decision

Based on reviewers' reports, the Editor may reach one of the following decisions:

  • Accept without revision
  • Minor Revision
  • Major Revision
  • Reject with encouragement to resubmit
  • Reject

The Editor-in-Chief has final authority regarding all editorial decisions.

13.7 Revision Process

When revisions are requested:

  • Authors should submit a revised manuscript within the specified deadline.
  • A detailed point-by-point response to reviewers' comments should accompany the revised submission.
  • Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for further evaluation if necessary.

Failure to submit revisions within the specified period may result in withdrawal of the manuscript from editorial consideration.

13.8 Confidentiality

All manuscripts under review are confidential documents.

Authors, reviewers, editors, and editorial staff must not:

  • Share unpublished manuscripts.
  • Disclose reviewer reports.
  • Reveal reviewer identities (except where an open peer review model is adopted).
  • Use unpublished information for personal advantage.

Confidentiality is maintained before, during, and after the peer-review process.

13.9 Conflict of Interest

Editors and reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest before participating in manuscript evaluation.

Individuals with conflicts of interest should decline review assignments or recuse themselves from editorial handling of the manuscript.

13.10 Appeals

Authors who disagree with an editorial decision may submit a written appeal to the Editorial Office.

Appeals should:

  • Clearly explain the reasons for the appeal.
  • Respond to reviewers' comments with supporting evidence.
  • Provide scientific justification where appropriate.

Appeals will be evaluated by the Editor-in-Chief and, where necessary, additional independent reviewers. The decision reached after the appeal process will be final.

13.11 Ethical Concerns

If reviewers or editors suspect:

  • Plagiarism.
  • Data fabrication or falsification.
  • Duplicate publication.
  • Image manipulation.
  • Undisclosed conflicts of interest.
  • Other forms of research misconduct.

The manuscript will be investigated in accordance with the Journal's Publication Ethics Policy and COPE guidance.

Editorial processing may be suspended while investigations are ongoing.

13.12 Reviewer Recognition

The Journal values the contribution of reviewers in maintaining scientific quality.

Reviewer identities remain confidential unless:

  • The Journal formally adopts an Open Peer Review model; or
  • The reviewer voluntarily agrees to disclose their identity.

The Journal may acknowledge reviewer contributions annually without linking reviewers to specific manuscripts.

13.13 Approximate Review Timeline

While timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and manuscript complexity, the Journal aims to:

  • Initial Editorial Screening: Within 7 days of submission.
  • Peer Review: Approximately 2–4 weeks.
  • First Editorial Decision: Within 4–6 weeks of submission.
  • Final Decision After Revision: Usually within 2–3 weeks after receipt of the revised manuscript.

These timelines are approximate and may vary depending on individual circumstances.

13.14 Policy Compliance

By submitting a manuscript, authors agree to participate in the Journal's peer-review process and to respond constructively to reviewer and editor comments.

Reviewers and editors agree to uphold the highest standards of confidentiality, impartiality, professionalism, and ethical conduct throughout the review process.

References

This policy has been developed in accordance with:

  • Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.
  • International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations.
  • World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) Recommendations.
  • Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing (DOAJ, COPE, OASPA, WAME).