JPCRR Peer-Review Policy
Editors rapidly review each submission upfront to gauge its worthiness for double-blind peer review. Every submission sent out for peer review is blinded of authorship identifiers and receives a minimum of two and typically three or more anonymous reviews. Once all reviews have been received by the editors, corresponding authors are given editorial decisions along with the anonymous reviewer feedback. Most manuscripts require revisions prior to acceptance. Authors are responsible for completing these revisions in a timely manner, as prescribed by the decision letter.
Final decisions on submissions are ultimately the responsibility of the JPCRR editorial board, which makes determinations based on reviewer recommendations, author responses and revisions, and the paper’s novelty, clarity and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion of the authors. Submissions by members of the editorial board are processed by the managing editor and production team to ensure blinded peer reviewers are used and unbiased reviews obtained. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are not tolerated.
During the review process, editors do not disclose any information about the submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers. Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Editors strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. The journal encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g. unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects [including animals], inappropriate data manipulation), and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
Reviews are conducted objectively and include supporting arguments for observations so that authors can use them for improving the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The journal acknowledge the contribution of volunteer reviewers to the journal in an annual supplement, and ceases to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews.
Disclosure and conflicts of interest
All authors should disclose in their submission any financial or other substantive conflict of interest that might be construed to influence the results or interpretation of their manuscript. All sources of financial support for the project must be disclosed at time of submission.