Peer Review Process

1. Purpose of peer review

The peer review process provides an independent assessment of submitted manuscripts by individuals with relevant subject expertise. It helps evaluate the scientific contribution, methodological soundness, originality and overall quality of research submitted to the journal.

The process also provides authors with constructive feedback that may improve the clarity, accuracy and presentation of their work.

2. Initial editorial assessment

Every submission is subject to an initial assessment by the editorial office or an appropriate editor. This assessment considers whether the manuscript falls within the journal's scope and whether it satisfies basic submission and presentation requirements.

The editor may consider the manuscript's originality, completeness, scientific relevance and compliance with applicable publication ethics requirements.

Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the journal's scope or unsuitable for further consideration may be declined at this stage.

3. Selection of reviewers

Manuscripts considered suitable for external assessment may be assigned to reviewers with relevant academic qualifications, research experience or subject expertise.

Reviewer selection should take into account the manuscript's research area and the expertise necessary for a meaningful scientific evaluation. Individuals with relevant competing interests should not participate in the review of that manuscript.

4. Evaluation criteria

Reviewers may evaluate a manuscript on the basis of the following considerations, as applicable to its article type:

• Originality and significance of the research.
• Relevance to the aims and scope of JPSA.
• Scientific accuracy and technical soundness.
• Appropriateness of theoretical, experimental or computational methods.
• Quality of data analysis and interpretation.
• Clarity of scientific arguments and presentation.
• Accuracy and relevance of references and citations.
• Compliance with research and publication ethics.

5. Reviewer recommendations

Reviewers may provide comments, identify limitations, request clarification and recommend improvements. Their assessments are communicated to the editor for consideration.

Reviewer recommendations may include acceptance, minor revision, major revision or rejection. These recommendations are advisory, and the final editorial decision rests with the responsible editor.

6. Editorial decisions

After considering the available reviews and the manuscript's overall scientific merit, the editor may communicate one of the following decisions:

• Accept: The manuscript is considered suitable for publication, subject to any remaining editorial or production requirements.
• Minor Revision: Limited corrections or clarifications are required before further consideration.
• Major Revision: Substantial changes or additional explanations are required.
• Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.

7. Revision and author response

When revision is requested, authors should carefully consider the comments provided by the reviewers and editor. A revised manuscript should be accompanied by a response explaining how each comment has been addressed.

Where authors disagree with a particular recommendation, they should provide a clear and scientifically reasoned explanation. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or assessed by the editor, as appropriate.

8. Responsibilities of reviewers

Reviewers are expected to conduct their evaluations objectively, professionally and within their area of expertise. They should:

• Maintain the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts.
• Provide constructive and evidence-based comments.
• Disclose any potential competing interests.
• Identify relevant published work that may have been overlooked.
• Report suspected ethical concerns to the editor.
• Avoid using unpublished information for personal advantage.

9. Confidentiality and editorial independence

Manuscripts and communications received during the review process should be treated as confidential. Reviewers and editors must not disclose unpublished material or use information obtained through review for purposes unrelated to their editorial responsibilities.

Editorial decisions should be based on scientific merit, relevance and compliance with journal policies. Personal, institutional or commercial considerations should not improperly influence the evaluation of submitted work.

10. Review timelines

The duration of the review process may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, subject area and the extent of revisions required. The journal aims to process submissions as efficiently as reasonably possible.

Authors should understand that a specific review duration cannot be guaranteed unless formally communicated by the editorial office.

11. Appeals and concerns

Authors who believe that an editorial decision involved a significant procedural error or a misunderstanding of the scientific content may submit a reasoned appeal to the editorial office. Appeals should identify the specific grounds for reconsideration and provide supporting explanations.

An appeal does not guarantee reversal of the original decision. The matter should be considered in accordance with the journal's editorial procedures and publication ethics requirements.

12. Review process and publication ethics

The peer review process operates in conjunction with the journal's publication ethics requirements. Concerns involving plagiarism, authorship, competing interests or research misconduct should be handled under the applicable journal policies.

Related information

Authors should also consult:

• Author Guidelines
• Manuscript Preparation
• Submission Process
• Publication Ethics
• Conflict of Interest Policy