Decision-Making Process

Pakistan Journal of Translational and Applied Medicine (PJTAM)

PJTAM is committed to a transparent, rigorous, and impartial editorial process. Every manuscript undergoes structured evaluation to ensure scientific originality, methodological robustness, ethical compliance, and relevance to the journal’s mission of advancing translational and applied medical research.

1. Initial Submission Screening

Preliminary Editorial Review
Upon receipt, the editorial office conducts an initial check to verify:

  • Compliance with formatting and submission requirements (e.g., abstract, references, figures, tables)

  • Adherence to PJTAM’s plagiarism policy (maximum 10% similarity threshold)

  • Completion of author details, conflict of interest declarations, funding statements, and license agreements

Scope and Relevance
The Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor evaluates whether the manuscript fits PJTAM’s focus on clinical medicine, biomedical sciences, diagnostics, therapeutics, or public health. Manuscripts outside the journal’s scope may be desk-rejected without peer review.

2. Peer Review Process

Reviewer Assignment
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are sent for double-blind peer review. At least two independent experts in the subject area are invited to evaluate the manuscript.

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers assess manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to medical knowledge or healthcare practice

  • Methodological soundness and appropriate study design (e.g., randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, reviews)

  • Presentation of results and clarity of discussion

  • Compliance with ethical standards for human/animal research

  • Adherence to scientific reporting standards (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA, STROBE)

Reviewer Recommendations
Typical reviewer recommendations include:

  • Accept without changes

  • Accept with minor revisions

  • Major revisions required (resubmission and possible re-review)

  • Reject

3. Editorial Evaluation and Final Decision

Synthesis of Peer Reviews
The handling editor consolidates the feedback from reviewers. In cases of conflicting reviews, a third reviewer may be invited, or the matter may be escalated to the editorial board for further discussion.

Final Decision
The Editor-in-Chief, in collaboration with the editorial team, makes the final decision. Possible outcomes include:

  • Accept

  • Minor Revisions

  • Major Revisions

  • Reject

Authors are informed via a formal decision letter that includes anonymized reviewer comments and any required action items.

4. Revisions and Resubmission

Minor Revisions
Authors are typically given 2 to 4 weeks to respond to reviewer feedback. The revised manuscript is assessed by the handling editor.

Major Revisions
Authors are given 4 to 8 weeks to revise and resubmit. Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, especially if substantial changes have been made.

Resubmission After Rejection
Manuscripts that are rejected are not usually reconsidered. However, in rare cases where reviewers have provided constructive feedback, resubmission as a new manuscript may be permitted at the editorial board’s discretion.

5. Communication and Appeals

Decision Notification
Authors receive a formal email including:

  • The editorial decision

  • Consolidated reviewer feedback

  • Instructions for resubmission or publication requirements (if accepted)

Appeals
Authors may appeal a decision by submitting a written request with a detailed rationale. Appeals are reviewed by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated appeals committee, and the outcome is final.

6. Post-Acceptance Workflow

Final Submission Requirements
Upon acceptance, authors must submit:

  • Final manuscript (with all revisions)

  • Author biographies

  • Signed copyright and licensing agreement

  • High-resolution figures and tables

Copyediting and Proof Review
Manuscripts are professionally edited for grammar, structure, and formatting. Authors are provided final proofs for approval before publication.

Online Publication
The final version is published in the next available issue of PJTAM and made openly accessible under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).

7. Ethical Oversight

Conflict of Interest Disclosure
All contributors must disclose any financial, institutional, or personal relationships that may influence their objectivity.

Research Ethics Compliance
Manuscripts involving human or animal subjects must include proper ethics board approval and informed consent statements. Non-compliance may result in rejection or further investigation.

Data and Reporting Integrity
PJTAM promotes transparency and reproducibility. Any concerns regarding data fabrication, falsification, or misconduct are taken seriously and may result in retraction, correction, or notification of the author’s institution.

This editorial framework reflects PJTAM’s dedication to scientific excellence, editorial integrity, and responsible publishing, ensuring that only high-quality research contributes to the advancement of healthcare in Pakistan and beyond.