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
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
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.
COMMENTS TO AUTHORS
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
COMMENTS TO EDITORS
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