Peer Review Policy

1. Introduction

Pakistan Journal of Surgery is committed to maintaining the highest standards of academic integrity and scientific rigor through a structured peer review process. Our peer review policy ensures that all published content meets international quality benchmarks, adheres to ethical guidelines, and contributes meaningfully to the advancement of healthcare knowledge.

2. Peer Review Model

Pakistan Journal of Surgery follows a double-blind peer review process, ensuring anonymity between authors and reviewers to minimize bias and promote objective evaluation.

• Double-blind: The identities of both authors and reviewers remain confidential.
• Alternative models: In special cases (e.g., invited reviews, editorials), a single-blind or open review approach may be considered.

3. Manuscript Evaluation Process

1. Initial Editorial Screening

• • The Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editors perform an initial assessment of submitted manuscripts.
  • Manuscripts are screened for scope alignment, originality, formatting compliance, and ethical concerns (e.g., plagiarism check via Turnitin or similar software).
  • Submissions that fail to meet basic requirements are desk rejected with constructive feedback.

2. Assignment to Reviewers

• • Suitable expert reviewers (at least two independent reviewers) are selected based on subject matter expertise.
  • Reviewers are required to declare any conflict of interest before accepting the review.

3. Review Criteria

Reviewers assess manuscripts based on the following parameters:

• • Originality & Novelty – Contribution to healthcare knowledge.
  • Scientific Rigor – Research methodology, statistical validity, and data interpretation.
  • Clinical Relevance – Impact on patient care, healthcare policy, or medical education.
  • Ethical Compliance – Adherence to COPE, ICMJE, and WAME guidelines.
  • Presentation Quality – Clarity, coherence, and adherence to journal formatting.

4. Reviewer Recommendations

Based on the evaluation, reviewers provide one of the following recommendations:

• • Accept without revisions.
  • Accept with minor revisions.
  • Revise and resubmit (major revisions).
  • Reject (with justification).

5. Editorial Decision

• • The Editor-in-Chief, in consultation with Associate Editors, makes the final decision based on reviewer comments.
  • Authors are given a defined timeline (e.g., 2–4 weeks) for revisions.
  • Revised manuscripts undergo further review if necessary before acceptance.

4. Reviewer Guidelines & Ethics

• Reviewers must maintain confidentiality and avoid discussing or sharing manuscript details.
• Reviews should be objective, constructive, and free from personal bias.
• Reviewers must disclose conflicts of interest and decline the assignment if they have prior knowledge of the authors or the research.
• Plagiarism, duplication, and unethical research practices must be immediately reported to the Editorial Board.

5. Timeline & Efficiency

• Reviewers are expected to complete their assessment within 2–4 weeks of assignment.
• Fast-track reviews may be considered for high-impact submissions (e.g., breakthrough findings, COVID-19 research).

6. Appeals & Disputes

• Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a formal request with justification.
• The appeal is reviewed by a Senior Editor or Advisory Board member, and a final decision is communicated within a reasonable timeframe.

7. Recognition of Reviewers

• Reviewers contributing high-quality reviews may receive:
  • Acknowledgment in the journal (annually).
  • Certification of peer review for academic recognition.
  • Consideration for Editorial Board membership based on sustained contributions.

8. Ethical Oversight & Compliance

The peer review process aligns with ethical standards set by:

• Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
• International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)
• World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)

This policy ensures that Pakistan Journal of Surgery maintains transparency, quality, and fairness in its peer review process, contributing to the credibility of published research.