Detailed and rigorous peer review process is the cornerstone of any journal. Reviewers need to be well informed of their vital role in the journal. The peer-review process supports the credibility of academic publications by attesting to the excellence and reliability of research output. As a peer-reviewed publication, we abide by the Committee on Publication Ethics↗, Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines↗ to guarantee that peer review is impartial, prompt, and fair. We at Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice are really appreciative of your time and work in reviewing the submitted articles for peer review.  

Reasons to Review

With the following advantages, we are working to reward the efforts of our reviewers, without whom it would be impossible to uphold the high standards of our peer-reviewed journal: `

• individual reviewer certificate
• inclusion of a name in a publication and online

Comprehensive Instructions for Reviewing a Manuscript 

Request for Review

• You will be provided a copy of the paper's abstract as soon as you are asked to peer-review it, which will allow you to assess whether the piece falls within your area of expertise. If it doesn't, kindly let the editor know right away and feel free to suggest a different reviewer.
• In the next two weeks, do you have time to review the paper? Please let the editor know if you believe you won't be able to reach the deadline.
• Possible conflicts of interest exist?  Conflicts of interest do not automatically prohibit you from perusing the manuscript review, but you must make sure the editor is aware of them before agreeing to do so.
• Have you reviewed this particular paper for a different journal? It isn't necessarily a conflict of interest in and of itself. Reviewers are welcome to comment on whether or not the manuscript has changed from the prior version in this situation.

If you are fit for the reviewing process, register on Online Journal System↗ of PJPPRP and log in to your account for reviewing the article.

Step 1: Scanning quickly

By skimming the abstract, you can get a fast overview of the manuscript that will help you grasp the purpose, methodology, and results of the research project. You can then form an opinion about the article and decide whether to accept it or reject it.

Step 2: Highlighting the Serious Issues

Reviewers are urged to keep the following things in mind before reading the entire document in order to save time by highlighting the significant issues:

• Inadequate and ambiguous data or sampling size
• Insignificant differences or inconsistent data
• Contradictory conclusion in light of the outcomes
• Presentation of data in figures, tables, and graphs that is ambiguous
• Possible fabrication or falsification of data
• Using enough control experiments
• accuracy and precision to process data
• Validity of the research questions, thorough methodology, and clearly reported findings
• Regular sampling in analytical papers
• disregarding practices or methods that are known to have a significant impact on the subject of the study
• If you discover any significant issues, please make a note of the precise cause and provide additional justification in the evaluation report.

Step 3: Data Inspection

Once you've determined that the work is reasonable and deserving of inspection, go through it section by section while keeping the following inquiries in mind:

Originality/Novelty

• Is the question clear and original?
• Do the findings add to our knowledge?

Significance

• Are the findings interpreted correctly?
• Are they noteworthy?
• Are all conclusions backed up by the results and justified?
• Are hypotheses and assumptions explicitly identified as such?

Ethical Standards for Research

• Has the study been conducted in accordance with generally recognized ethical research standards?
• Is there any evidence of unethical behavior—such as plagiarism, fraud, or scientific misconduct—that needs to be reported right away?

The Presentation's Quality

• Is the article appropriately written?
• Are the analyses and data provided correctly?
• Did the author present the results using the highest standards possible?

Scientific Reliability

• Is the study technically sound and properly designed?
• Do the analyses follow the most stringent technical guidelines?
• Are the data strong enough to draw a conclusion?
• Are the procedures, instruments, and materials adequately explained to permit another researcher to duplicate the findings?
• Participant's health or safety were not jeopardized while they participated in the study, and all moral guidelines were followed.

Relevance to Readers

• Are the conclusions compelling to the journal's readers?
• Will a large audience be drawn to the paper, or will a smaller audience find it interesting? PJPPRP

English Level

• Assess either the English language write up is appropriate and understandable?

Step 4: Thorough, second reading.

Keep in mind the following arguments while you reread the article, paying particular attention to the overall linguistic clarity and the content matter:

• Relevance of the paper's title to its topic
• A well-written abstract serving as a clear explanation of the work
• In light of recent, reliable research and with the most recent publication cited, originality should be established.
• Results and analysis must be presented coherently.
• The document should be optimized for search engines by including distinct keywords that may increase the article's discoverability there.
• length of the document
• The paper's language, grammar, relevance, and logic
• References must be applicable, current, sufficient, and easily accessible.

Note: If you discover or suspect direct plagiarism, cite the relevant source and mark/highlight the offending passage in the document.

Final Recommendations Note.

Write an overall note of recommendation explaining what category manuscript falls in:

• Accept in present form: The article is acceptable as it is, without any modifications.
• Minor Revision required: When the article is accepted but minor modifications are advised by the reviewers. Authors needs to submit the revised files within 1 week.
• Reconsider after Major Revisions: The revisions would determine if the manuscript was accepted. If parts of the reviewer's criticisms cannot be changed, the author must offer a point-by-point justification to it. Typically, just one major revision round is permitted. The corrected article will be returned to the reviewer for additional feedback after the authors are given ten days to resubmit it
• Reject: When the article submitted has pertinent flaws in it, and manuscript makes no contribution in the field of subject matter, so the paper is declared as rejected with no further offer of resubmission in the future.

Any recommendation provided by the reviewer should only be visible to the editor, but not to the authors.

Quick and Timely Review Reports

Reviewers are asked to help by submitting review reports within stipulated time. If you need a deadline extension for the review, please get in touch with the editorial office.

• The Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice accepts manuscripts that adhere to the highest standards of publication ethics.
• Only unpublished results should be reported in manuscripts.
• The text in manuscripts must be original; it cannot be taken from another source without being properly cited.

Anonymity and Confidentiality

Reviewers are expected to maintain the confidentiality of the manuscript's content, including the abstract. Reviewers must let the Editorial Office know if they want a student or coworker to write the review for them.

Peer review at Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice is double-blind. When leaving comments or adding information to reports submitted in Microsoft Word or PDF format, reviewers should take care to keep their identity a secret from the authors.

Note that after the final judgment has been made, reviewers are granted access to all review reports for the articles they have reviewed via the online submission system.

The ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses), and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments) are only a few of the criteria and norms that Pakistan Journal of Professional Psychology: Research and Practice adheres to. Reviewers who are acquainted with the guidelines should communicate any worries they have with their application.

Please refer to the following documents for more information about peer review:

COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. Committee on Publication Ethics. Available online .

Hames, I. Peer Review and Manuscript Management in Scientific Journals: Guidelines for Good Practice . Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2007.  

Writing a journal article review. Australian National University: Canberra, Australia, 2010. Available online .

Golash-Boza, T. How to write a peer review for an academic journal: Six steps from start to finish. Available online