The Pathophysiology of Cell Injury Journal (PCIJ) follows the ethical framework and best practice standards set by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and the ICMJE Uniform Requirements. Reviewers play a crucial role in ensuring the scientific quality, accuracy, and integrity of the articles we publish. All manuscripts are confidential documents, and reviewers are expected to treat them with the highest level of professional discretion.
Confidentiality and Professional Conduct
- All unpublished manuscripts sent for review are confidential and must not be shared, discussed, or distributed without permission from the editor.
- If a reviewer consults a colleague or student during the review, they must first obtain editorial permission and acknowledge that person’s contribution in the review comments.
- Reviewers should not attempt to contact authors directly regarding any aspect of the manuscript.
- Manuscripts must not be used for personal advantage, teaching, or citation until formally published.
Reviewer’s Scoring Sheet Evaluation Criteria
| Category | Description |
|---|---|
| 1. Major Compulsory Revisions | Essential changes required before a decision can be made. Examples include missing experiments, lack of controls, statistical errors, or incorrect interpretation. |
| 2. Minor Essential Revisions | Minor issues the authors can be trusted to correct. Examples include mislabeled figures, unclear terms, or typographical errors. |
| 3. Discretionary Revisions | Optional recommendations that may improve the manuscript but are not essential for acceptance. Examples include clarifications or additional supporting data. |
| 4. Level of Interest | • An article of high importance in its field. • Findings of interest to researchers with related specialties. • An article of limited or niche relevance. |
| 5. Overall Assessment | • Accept without revision. • Accept after discretionary revisions. • Accept after minor essential revisions. • Accept or reject pending major compulsory revisions. • Reject as scientifically unsound or out of scope. |
6. Declaration of Competing Interests
Reviewers must disclose any actual or potential conflicts of interest that could influence their objectivity. Please consider the following:
- Have you received fees, funding, or employment from an organization that could gain or lose financially from the publication of this manuscript?
- Do you own stocks, shares, or patents related to the subject of the manuscript?
- Have you collaborated, published, or supervised the authors within the past three years?
- Do you have any personal, academic, or political conflicts related to the subject matter?
If your answer is “No” to all of the above, please state:
“I declare that I have no competing interests.”
“I declare that I have no competing interests.”
If “Yes”, please provide full details of the potential conflicts within your review form.
Responding to a Request to Serve as a Reviewer
- Invitations are sent via e-mail and include the manuscript title and abstract for preliminary evaluation.
- Use the provided links to either Accept or Decline the invitation within five working days.
- If you accept, you will receive secure access credentials to the PCIJ submission platform to view the full manuscript and upload your review and score sheet.
- If you decline, please suggest alternative qualified reviewers (with institutional affiliations and e-mails) if possible.
- Reviews should be submitted within 14–21 days unless otherwise agreed with the handling editor.
Timely and constructive reviews are essential to maintain PCIJ’s average review turnaround of 60–90 days from submission to decision.
Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
- Provide objective, evidence-based assessments free from personal bias or hostility.
- Evaluate manuscripts solely on scientific quality, novelty, methodology, and relevance.
- Report any suspected plagiarism, data fabrication, or ethical misconduct directly to the editor.
- Do not delay or influence publication for competitive or personal reasons.
PCIJ adheres to the COPE Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers (2017). Breaches of confidentiality, plagiarism, or misuse of confidential information will result in permanent removal from the reviewer database.