Peer-Review
The peer review process is a vital part of our publication system. Every manuscript submitted to the Pakistan Journal of Nutrition is carefully reviewed by our Editorial Board and undergoes a blind assessment by two independent reviewers. Below is the standard editorial workflow that applies to all submissions.
Preliminary Evaluation
All incoming manuscripts are submitted through our in-house tracking system. Upon receipt, our Editorial Office performs a plagiarism check and reviews the submission to determine eligibility for peer review. It is essential that manuscripts are well-written, formatted correctly, and of high scientific quality. During this initial assessment, we evaluate the following aspects:
- Does the manuscript fall within the journal’s aims and scope?
- Is the article of adequate quality and interest to justify full peer review?
- Does the manuscript adhere to the journal’s formatting and submission guidelines?
- Has this work not been published elsewhere or submitted simultaneously to another journal?
If the manuscript does not align with the journal’s guidelines and expectations, it may be rejected at the initial stage.
Peer Review
Once a manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to either a Regional Editor or the Editor-in-Chief. They will then forward the manuscript to a Handling/Academic Editor. The Handling/Academic Editor selects at least three to five reviewers to evaluate the manuscript through the peer review process. Reviewers provide their feedback along with one of the following recommendations:
-
Accept – The manuscript is suitable for publication as it is.
-
Minor Revision – Some minor changes are needed before the manuscript can be accepted.
-
Major Revision – Significant improvements are required; the revised manuscript will be reviewed again.
-
Reject and Resubmit – The manuscript is not suitable in its current form, but the author may resubmit after major changes.
-
Reject – The manuscript is not suitable for publication in the journal.
The Pakistan Journal of Nutrition uses four types of peer review to ensure fairness and quality:
-
Double-Blind Review: The identities of both authors and reviewers are kept hidden from each other to maintain objectivity.
-
Single-Blind Review: Reviewers know the authors’ identities, but authors do not know who the reviewers are.
-
Open Peer Review: Both the authors and reviewers know each other’s identities, promoting transparency in the review process.
-
Transparent Peer Review: The review reports and editorial decisions are published alongside the article to ensure openness and accountability.
We make every effort to follow the ethical standards recommended by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). These guidelines are also shared with our reviewers to maintain integrity and fairness throughout the evaluation process.
Editorial Verdict
To conclude a manuscript, at least three completed peer review reports are required. Once the evaluations are received, the assigned Academic Editor carefully reviews the feedback and forwards a recommendation to the senior editorial authority (either a Section Editor or the Editor-in-Chief). The senior editor then makes the final judgment on the manuscript. The submitting author is officially notified of the decision.
If the manuscript receives a conditional acceptance, the authors must revise it based on the editorial feedback and submit the updated version for additional assessment.
Our editorial process gives editors the authority to decline manuscripts for various reasons, such as misalignment with the journal’s scope, poor research quality, or unreliable findings. To maintain rigorous standards and ensure an impartial review, we forward submissions to qualified reviewers from diverse geographical regions.
