Peer-Review

The Pakistan Journal of Nutrition (PJN) uses a double-blind peer review process to ensure the fair, independent, and scholarly evaluation of submitted manuscripts. In double-blind peer review, the identities of the authors are not disclosed to the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are not disclosed to the authors.

Initial Editorial Screening

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by the Editorial Office before being sent for external peer review. This assessment is intended to determine whether the manuscript is suitable for consideration by the journal.

During the initial screening, the journal may evaluate whether the manuscript:

  • Falls within the aims and scope of the journal;
  • Meets the journal's basic scientific and editorial requirements;
  • Complies with the submission and formatting requirements;
  • Contains appropriate ethical statements and approvals where applicable;
  • Is original and is not under consideration by another journal; and
  • Raises concerns regarding plagiarism, research integrity, or publication ethics.

A manuscript that does not meet the journal's requirements may be returned to the authors for correction or may be declined without external peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

Manuscripts that successfully complete the initial screening are normally evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with relevant expertise in nutrition or a related field. The journal takes reasonable steps to preserve the anonymity of both authors and reviewers throughout the double-blind peer review process.

Reviewers are selected on the basis of their subject expertise, research experience, independence, and ability to provide a fair and constructive assessment. When necessary, the editor may invite additional reviewers, particularly when reviewer reports differ substantially, specialized expertise is required, or additional evaluation would assist the editorial decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to assess manuscripts objectively, confidentially, and constructively. Their evaluation should consider the scientific validity, originality, methodology, interpretation of results, clarity of presentation, relevance to the journal's scope, and overall contribution of the work.

Reviewers must disclose any potential conflict of interest that could affect their impartiality. A reviewer who believes that a conflict prevents an objective evaluation should decline the review or inform the editor promptly.

Manuscripts and associated materials received for review must be treated as confidential and must not be shared, used, or disclosed for purposes unrelated to the peer review process.

Reviewer Recommendations

After evaluating a manuscript, reviewers may provide comments for the authors and confidential comments for the editor, where appropriate. Their recommendations may include:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication without substantial further revision.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires limited changes before it can be considered for acceptance.
  • Major Revision: Substantial changes or additional clarification are required before a further decision can be made.
  • Reject and Resubmit: Extensive changes are required, and a substantially revised manuscript may be considered as a new or resubmitted submission.
  • Reject: The manuscript is not considered suitable for publication in the journal.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory. The final editorial decision is made by the responsible editor after consideration of the reviewer reports, the manuscript, the authors' responses, and relevant editorial and ethical considerations.

Revisions

When revision is requested, authors should address the reviewers' and editors' comments carefully and provide a clear response explaining the changes made to the manuscript or the reasons for not making a requested change.

A revised manuscript may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editor, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions. Additional reviewers may be invited when necessary.

Editorial Decision

The editor evaluates the available peer review reports and other relevant information before making or recommending an editorial decision. Differences between reviewer recommendations do not automatically determine the outcome of a manuscript. Where reports are conflicting or insufficient for a well-informed decision, the editor may seek additional expert review.

The final decision is based on the scientific quality, originality, methodological soundness, relevance, ethical compliance, and overall suitability of the manuscript for the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editors must make decisions based on the scholarly merits of the manuscript and must avoid involvement in the evaluation of submissions where they have a relevant conflict of interest. In such circumstances, responsibility for the manuscript will be assigned to another qualified editor.

Submissions from editors or editorial board members are subject to the same editorial and peer review standards as other submissions. The submitting editor or board member will not participate in reviewer selection or the editorial decision for their own manuscript.

Confidentiality and Peer Review Integrity

The journal treats submitted manuscripts, reviewer reports, and editorial correspondence as confidential materials. Authors, reviewers, and editors are expected to respect the confidentiality and integrity of the peer review process.

Any attempt to manipulate peer review, including the submission of fabricated reviewer identities, inappropriate influence over reviewers, undisclosed conflicts of interest, or other deceptive practices, may result in rejection of the manuscript and further action in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.