Peer Review Policy

Peer Review Policy

Introduction

The PIMA Journal of Health Sciences is committed to upholding the highest standards of scientific integrity, transparency, and fairness in the peer review process. This policy ensures a rigorous, ethical, and constructive review system that aligns with international guidelines, including those of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE).

The manuscript goes for peer review only when it is successfully filtered through the Initial Submission Screening, and Plagiarism & Ethical Compliance Check. Thus, the Ethical Considerations like Conflict of Interest (COI), Plagiarism & Misconduct Fabrication, falsification, and duplicate submissions etc are sorted before manuscript reaches in the hands of subject specialist.

Peer Review Model and number

The journal employs a Double-Blind Peer Review System:

  • Double-Blind: Both reviewers and authors remain anonymous.
  • Each manuscript will be sent to two subject specialists.

Reviewer Selection Criteria

  • Reviewers are chosen based on their expertise, academic qualifications, research experience, and prior reviewing history.
  • The editorial team ensures no conflicts of interest between reviewers and authors.
  • A reviewer database is maintained and updated regularly to ensure diversity and subject relevance.

Reviewer’s Responsibilities

  • Conduct reviews objectively, confidentially, and fairly.
  • Provide constructive, evidence-based feedback on scientific content, methodology, and ethical considerations.
  • Adhere to review deadlines or notify the editorial office in case of delays.

Peer Review Process:
The manuscript is sent to two subject-matter experts for evaluation. A structured review form is sent to the reviewers for objective assessment and with explanation of the outcome.

 Reviewers assess:

    • Originality and significance.
    • Study design and methodology.
    • Quality of results and discussion.
  • Timeline: Minimum 4 weeks (depending on reviewer availability and feedback).
  • Outcome:
    • Accepted: With or without minor revisions.
    • Rejected: Due to significant flaws or irrelevance.
    • Returned for Revisions: Major or minor changes required before re-evaluation.

Reviewer Confidentiality

  • Reviewers must declare conflicts of interest and maintain strict confidentiality.

Revision, Re-Evaluation & Appeal

  • Authors must respond to all reviewer comments with justifications.
  • Revised manuscripts undergo further review or direct editorial assessment.
  • If rejected, authors may appeal within 4 weeks, provided they submit strong justifications.

Reviewer Recognition & Honorariums

  • Optional: The journal may offer certificates of appreciation, CME credits, or monetary honorariums for high-quality and timely reviews.
  • Outstanding reviewers may be invited to join the Editorial Board.

Policy Updates

This policy is reviewed periodically to ensure compliance with evolving ethical and publishing standards.

For further details, please contact.