Guidelines for reviewers

Peer review process is very important in publishing a high quality article in which reviewer’s role is very essential. Reviewer comments are the primary source of an Editor in making decision on an article. We kindly request our reviewers to read the guidelines given below and follow it.


PPH Journals operate Double-blind peer review process. Immediately after Editor’s initial assessment, reviewers are invited to review the manuscript and to provide detail comment on the manuscript.

  •  Based on the manuscript title and abstract, reviewers can accept or decline the invitation or they can suggest an alternate reviewer, however, it is not mandatory.
  •  Articles submitted to our PPH Journals are peer reviewed by at least two internationally recognized experts. If the reviewer(s) comments are not satisfied, the Editor-in-Chief may invite more reviewers or may seek advice from Editorial Board to make a final decision on the manuscript.
  •  Reviewers must not share or discuss about the manuscript with anyone outside the peer review process. They must keep the peer review process confidential.
  •  Reviewers are kindly requested to submit their valuable comments on the manuscript within the agreed timeframe. However, if reviewers required more time, they can send email to the corresponding Editors in order to extend the time for submitting the comments.
  •  Potential Conflicts of Interests: Reviewers may inform to the Editor-in-Chief if they hold any conflict of interest. If the reviewers invited to evaluate an article which they previously reviewed for another journal should not consider this as a conflict of interest in itself. In this case, reviewers can comment on the manuscript and they can highlight the changes made between the previous version and the current one.

  •  It is highly recommended that the reviewer should comment on originality of the manuscript submitted for review.
  •  Reviewer comments should include strengths and weaknesses of the work and the manuscript in a more detailed manner.
  •  Reviewers should give valuable advice on how to improve the article. However, it should not change or spoil the main focus of the manuscript.
  •  Technical quality, charity of the presentation, depth of research, and contribution to the field of the manuscript should be commented as detail as possible.
  •  Review comment should be comprehensive and clear.
  •  Reviewer must avoid personal criticism on authors, co-authors or corresponding authors.
  •  Reviewers must not contact authors personally about the paper or work.

  • Reviewers’ recommendation should be either:

    Accept as it: the paper is accepted without any further changes

    Minor revision: the manuscript can be accepted after minor changes

    Major revision: the acceptance of manuscript is depending on the revisions and the manuscript requires major changes before its acceptance for publication

    Resubmission: manuscript may be resubmitted after editor or reviewers suggestion

    Article transfer to another Journal:manuscript may be suitable for another journal

    Reject:the article is not original or it has serious flaws

  •  Reviewers can make personal comment on the manuscript about originality, quality and clarity of the paper.
  •  Specific statement such as ‘this work has been done before’ can be highlighted with appropriate references or evidences which may help editors in their evaluation and decision.
  •  Make sure that the confidential comments on manuscript to the editor should not be a place for denigration or false accusation, done in the knowledge that the authors will not see these comments.