peer review
Peer Review Process and Criteria
Overview of the Peer Review Process
JPS journal employs a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the quality, validity, and significance of published research. All submitted manuscripts undergo evaluation by at least two independent experts in the relevant field.
Submission and Initial Screening
Upon submission, the editorial team conducts an initial screening to assess whether the manuscript:
- Falls within the journal's scope and aims
- Meets basic formatting and ethical requirements
- Represents original research not under consideration elsewhere
- Contains sufficient methodological detail and scientific merit to warrant peer review
Manuscripts that do not meet these preliminary criteria are returned to authors without peer review.
Peer Review Criteria
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts according to the following criteria:
Originality and Significance
- Does the work present novel findings, methods, or insights?
- Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?
- Is the research question important and clearly articulated?
- Does the work advance current knowledge or understanding?
Scientific Rigor and Methodology
- Are the research methods appropriate for the questions being addressed?
- Is the experimental or analytical design sound and well-justified?
- Are sample sizes adequate and statistical analyses appropriate?
- Are potential sources of bias acknowledged and addressed?
- Can the study be replicated based on the information provided?
Data Quality and Analysis
- Are the data of sufficient quality and quantity to support the conclusions?
- Are statistical methods correctly applied and assumptions validated?
- Are figures and tables clear, accurate, and necessary?
- Are raw data or supplementary materials provided where appropriate?
- Are alternative explanations for results considered?
Writing Quality and Clarity
- Is the manuscript well-organized and logically structured?
- Is the writing clear, concise, and grammatically correct?
- Are technical terms properly defined?
- Is the literature review comprehensive and current?
- Are citations appropriate and properly formatted?
Ethical Standards
- Do the authors declare all conflicts of interest?
- Is informed consent documented where required?
- Are ethical approvals for human or animal research provided?
- Are data sharing and availability statements included?
- Is proper attribution given to previous work and contributors?
Conclusions and Interpretation
- Are conclusions supported by the data presented?
- Are claims appropriately cautious and not overstated?
- Are limitations of the study acknowledged?
- Are implications for the field clearly articulated?
Review Recommendations
Reviewers are asked to provide one of the following recommendations:
**Accept:** The manuscript meets all criteria and requires no revisions.
**Minor Revisions:** The manuscript is scientifically sound but requires small improvements in presentation, clarification of methods, or additional minor analyses.
**Major Revisions:** The manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions such as additional experiments, reanalysis of data, significant restructuring, or major clarifications before it can be reconsidered.
**Reject:** The manuscript has fundamental flaws in methodology, analysis, or interpretation that cannot be adequately addressed through revision, or does not meet the journal's standards for originality and significance.
Reviewer Guidelines
Confidentiality
Reviewers must treat all manuscripts as confidential documents. The content should not be shared, discussed with colleagues without editor permission, or used for personal research advantage.
Timeliness
Reviewers are expected to complete reviews within three weeks of acceptance. If unable to meet this deadline, reviewers should notify the editor immediately.
Objectivity and Tone
Reviews should be objective, constructive, and respectful. Personal criticism of authors is unacceptable. Reviewers should provide specific, actionable feedback that helps authors improve their work.
Conflicts of Interest
Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest, including recent collaborations with authors, financial interests in the research outcomes, or strong personal biases regarding the topic.
Constructive Feedback
Reviewers should provide detailed comments that:
- Identify specific strengths and weaknesses
- Suggest concrete improvements
- Explain the reasoning behind criticisms
- Distinguish between essential revisions and optional suggestions
Editorial Decision Process
The editor considers all reviewer reports along with their own assessment to make a final decision. The editor may:
- Request additional reviews if assessments conflict significantly
- Seek statistical or methodological expert consultation
- Override reviewer recommendations if justified
- Request revisions beyond those suggested by reviewers
Author Response and Revision
Authors invited to revise manuscripts must:
- Provide a point-by-point response to all reviewer comments
- Clearly indicate changes made in the revised manuscript
- Justify any reviewer suggestions not implemented
- Submit revisions within the specified timeframe (typically 60-90 days)
Appeals Process
Authors may appeal editorial decisions by providing a detailed letter explaining why they believe the decision was inappropriate, along with supporting evidence. Appeals are reviewed by the editor-in-chief or an independent editorial board member.
Post-Publication Review
The journal maintains mechanisms for post-publication review, including corrections, retractions, and expressions of concern when issues are identified after publication.
