Peer Review Policy
The Review Process
The Pakistan Journal of Pathology employs a clearly defined and thorough peer review system to maintain transparency, impartiality, and rigor in manuscript assessment. The journal adheres to a double-blind review procedure, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous.
Guidelines
The chosen manuscript undergoes an initial evaluation by two external peer reviewers, selected by the editorial team for their expertise in the relevant field. Based on the reviewers' recommendations, the editorial team then determines the next course of action among the available options:
- Accept after editorial revisions--inviting the authors to revise their manuscripts and address specific concerns before a final decision is reached.
- Reject, but indicate to the authors that further work might justify a resubmission.
- Reject outright, typically on grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
While reviewers are encouraged to suggest specific recommendations, the editors may occasionally need to reconcile conflicting opinions when making final decisions. Editorial judgments are not determined by vote counts or numerical rankings, and the majority view is not automatically adopted. Instead, editors carefully assess the validity of the arguments presented by both reviewers and authors, ensuring confidentiality is maintained throughout the process. Reviewer critiques, especially technical concerns, are given significant weight and are seldom dismissed. If a single reviewer opposes publication, other reviewers may be asked to evaluate whether the objections are overly stringent. In rare cases where disputes arise—particularly on specialized technical matters—additional reviewers may be consulted, though this is reserved for situations requiring further expert insight. These guidelines are available in detail for the authors as well as reviewers.
Selection of Reviewer: Reviewers are matched to the paper according to their expertise from our constantly updated database.
Reviewer Report: Reviewers should evaluate the manuscript's originality, methodological soundness, compliance with ethical guidelines, clarity of findings, and the validity of the conclusions. They are also expected to assess the appropriateness of referenced sources. Although linguistic refinement is not mandatory, reviewers may suggest grammatical or stylistic enhancements if desired. Additionally, reviewers must highlight any major omissions in cited literature and provide references for conflicting evidence or alternative interpretations. To maintain objectivity, reviewers should decline to assess manuscripts where they have conflicts of interest—including competitive, collaborative, or institutional relationships.
Duration of Review Process: The duration of the initial review cycle depends on reviewer responsiveness. Reviewers are expected to adhere to the stipulated deadline (typically 4–6 weeks) for evaluating the manuscript and to acknowledge any follow-up reminders. Once the editor reaches a decision, the manuscript is returned to the author along with the reviewers' recommendations, often including their direct comments. The revised submission then undergoes further rounds of evaluation until it meets the required standards, culminating in a final decision.
Rewarding Reviewers: Acknowledgement and appreciation email along with the online reviewer certificate is sent on completion of the review through online review system.
Editor’s Decision is Final: Reviewers advice the editor, who is responsible for the final decision to accept or reject the article.
Continuous Improvement:
Pak J Pathol strives to uphold the highest standards in its peer review process. By regularly soliciting and evaluating feedback from authors, reviewers, and editorial board members, the journal aims to improve the fairness, clarity, and efficiency of its review system.
This detailed Peer Review Policy describes the essential procedures, ethical guidelines, and core principles governing the journal’s peer review process, with a strong emphasis on accountability, objectivity, and ongoing refinement.
