Reviewer Management

Pakistan Journal of Translational and Applied Medicine (PJTAM)

Overview

At PJTAM, an effective, ethical, and inclusive reviewer management system is essential to maintaining the journal’s standards of scientific excellence, transparency, and integrity. Our structured peer review framework ensures that each manuscript is evaluated fairly, thoroughly, and in a timely manner by qualified experts in the medical and health sciences community.

1. Reviewer Recruitment and Selection

Subject Expertise
Reviewers are selected based on their academic and professional expertise in fields such as clinical medicine, public health, translational biomedical sciences, and healthcare policy. Selection criteria include:

  • Advanced academic qualifications and research background

  • A consistent record of peer-reviewed publications

  • Methodological competence in clinical or experimental research

Diversity and Representation
PJTAM values diversity and aims to maintain a broad reviewer pool that reflects different regions, institutions, career stages, and genders. This inclusive approach enhances the quality and fairness of peer review.

Invitation to Review
Selected reviewers receive a formal invitation including:

  • Manuscript title and abstract

  • Review deadline (generally 2–4 weeks)

  • Instructions for disclosing potential conflicts of interest

Reviewers may accept or decline based on relevance and availability.

Reviewer Database
PJTAM maintains a dynamic reviewer database updated through:

  • Literature reviews

  • Recommendations from the editorial board

  • Author suggestions

  • Academic networking and conferences

2. Reviewer Assignment Process

Double-Blind Peer Review
PJTAM follows a double-blind peer review system where:

  • Reviewer and author identities remain anonymous

  • Confidentiality and impartiality are maintained

Workload Distribution
To avoid reviewer fatigue and ensure quality, the editorial office monitors reviewer assignments and balances the workload accordingly.

Inclusivity
Both senior experts and promising early-career researchers are invited to participate in peer review to foster mentorship and capacity building.

3. Reviewer Expectations and Guidelines

Evaluation Criteria
Reviewers are expected to evaluate manuscripts based on:

  • Originality and contribution to the field

  • Methodological quality and scientific rigor

  • Accuracy and clarity of data interpretation

  • Relevance to clinical or public health practice

  • Ethical compliance and use of reporting guidelines (e.g., CONSORT, PRISMA)

Timeliness
Reviews should be submitted within 2–4 weeks. If more time is needed, reviewers are encouraged to notify the editorial office promptly. Excessive delays may result in reassignment.

Confidentiality
Reviewers are required to:

  • Maintain confidentiality of all materials

  • Refrain from using unpublished content for personal or academic purposes

  • Avoid sharing manuscript information with unauthorized individuals

Ethical Responsibility
Reviewers must alert the editors in case of:

  • Suspected plagiarism or data manipulation

  • Unethical practices in human or animal research

  • Any real or perceived conflicts of interest

4. Communication and Support

Editorial Support
Editors are available to assist reviewers with:

  • Clarifications regarding manuscript content or review expectations

  • Technical support through the online system

  • Addressing concerns or providing guidance as needed

Recognition
PJTAM acknowledges reviewer contributions through:

  • Annual publication of reviewer acknowledgments

  • Certificates of appreciation (available upon request)

  • Opportunities to be considered for editorial roles

5. Quality Assurance in Peer Review

Performance Monitoring
Each review is evaluated by the editors for:

  • Analytical depth and constructiveness

  • Professional tone and fairness

  • Timeliness and responsiveness

Unsatisfactory performance may result in exclusion from future review invitations.

Conflicting Reviews
If reviewer opinions conflict or are unclear:

  • A third review may be solicited

  • The editorial team may intervene to reach a balanced final decision

Ongoing Evaluation
Reviewers are periodically assessed, and consistently high-performing contributors are prioritized for future invitations and editorial engagement.

6. Reviewer Development and Incentives

Acknowledgment and Visibility
High-contributing reviewers are recognized in PJTAM’s annual report and may be featured in editorial communications.

Capacity Building
To support reviewer development, PJTAM offers:

  • Webinars and training on peer review best practices

  • Guidance on ethical publishing and research integrity

  • Mentorship opportunities within the editorial framework

Incentives
PJTAM is exploring potential incentives for reviewers, including:

  • Discounts on Article Processing Charges (APCs) for future submissions

  • Fast-track handling of reviewer-authored manuscripts

  • Exclusive access to partner academic resources

7. Managing Conflicts and Misconduct

Conflict of Interest
All reviewers must declare any conflicts, including:

  • Financial or commercial interests

  • Academic competition or rivalry

  • Prior collaborations with the manuscript authors

In such cases, an alternate reviewer will be assigned.

Addressing Misconduct
Reviewers found in violation of journal ethics, such as:

  • Breaching confidentiality

  • Using manuscript content inappropriately

  • Submitting biased or unprofessional reviews

Will be subject to investigation, which may lead to:

  • Immediate removal from the reviewer database

  • Notification of affiliated institutions

  • Escalation to relevant bodies such as COPE

Conclusion

PJTAM’s reviewer management policy is grounded in ethical standards, fairness, and scientific responsibility. By fostering a well-supported, diverse, and skilled reviewer base, PJTAM ensures that every article published reflects rigorous evaluation and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of healthcare research.