Peer Review Policy

Overview

PJTAM upholds the highest standards of academic excellence and integrity through a rigorous, fair, and ethical peer review process. All submitted manuscripts undergo thorough evaluation to ensure scientific validity, clinical relevance, methodological soundness, and ethical compliance. Peer review is the cornerstone of our publication ethics and quality assurance.

Review Model: Double-Blind Peer Review

PJTAM follows a double-blind peer review process, which ensures:

  • Author anonymity: Reviewers do not know the identity of the authors.

  • Reviewer anonymity: Authors are not informed of the reviewers’ identities.

This model promotes objectivity, reduces bias, and ensures evaluation is based solely on scientific merit.

Peer Review Workflow

1. Submission & Editorial Screening

  • Manuscripts must be submitted via the PJTAM online submission system.

  • The editorial office conducts initial screening to verify:

     Relevance to translational and applied medicine
     Formatting and adherence to submission guidelines
     Ethical approvals (IRB or ethics committee clearance, where applicable)
    Plagiarism check using Turnitin or equivalent tools

Manuscripts failing these checks may be rejected without peer review.

2. Reviewer Selection & Assignment

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to two or more independent expert reviewers, selected based on:

  • Subject matter expertise

  • Research and publication record

  • Absence of any conflict of interest with authors or institutions

3. Review Process

Reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to applied medical science

  • Scientific rigor and study design

  • Data analysis and interpretation

  • Ethical conduct and disclosures

  • Clarity and coherence of writing

Reviewers make one of the following recommendations:

  •  Accept without revision

  •  Minor revisions required

  •  Major revisions required (with resubmission)

  •  Reject

4. Editorial Decision & Author Notification

  • Editors review all peer reports and issue a final decision.

  • Authors receive:

     Consolidated reviewer feedback
     A clear decision letter
     Resubmission deadline (if applicable)

Revised submissions may be sent for re-evaluation depending on the extent of changes.

Timeframe

The standard review cycle takes 4–6 weeks, depending on:

  • Reviewer responsiveness

  • Manuscript complexity

  • Extent of revisions needed

Authors are encouraged to respond promptly to revision requests to accelerate publication.

Reviewer Ethics & Responsibilities

Confidentiality

All manuscripts are confidential. Reviewers must not:

  • Share content with others

  • Use unpublished material for personal use

  • Disclose or discuss manuscripts without editorial permission

Objectivity & Conduct

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Provide constructive, unbiased, and professional feedback

  • Refrain from offensive, discriminatory, or dismissive remarks

  • Declare any conflict of interest immediately

Appeals Process

If an author believes a decision was made in error, they may submit a formal appeal with evidence and justification.

  • Appeals are reviewed by the editorial board

  • An independent reviewer may be consulted

  • The Editor-in-Chief's decision is final

Ethical Standards & Governance

PJTAM adheres to:

  • COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) standards

  • HEC Pakistan journal quality guidelines

All peer review practices are transparent, fair, and held to the highest academic standards.

Reviewer Recognition

To acknowledge reviewer contributions:

  • PJTAM publishes an annual list of reviewers (with permission)

  • Certificates of Appreciation are available upon request

Conclusion

The peer review process at PJTAM is central to ensuring research quality. Through double-blind review, rigorous evaluation, and ethical oversight, we publish only high-impact, original, and clinically relevant research that advances the frontiers of translational and applied medicine.