PCIJ follows a structured editorial workflow:

• Manuscript submission
• Initial editorial assessment
• Double-blind peer review by at least two independent experts
• Editorial decision based on reviewer reports
• Revision cycle(s), if required
• Final acceptance or rejection

This process follows COPE recommendations for transparent and responsible editorial practice.

All manuscripts are submitted through the journal’s online manuscript management system.
Upon receipt, submissions are screened by the Editorial Office for:

• Completeness and format compliance
• Alignment with the journal’s aims and scope
• Ethical compliance
• Plagiarism and similarity (using professional detection tools)

The Editor-in-Chief or a designated Handling Editor assesses originality, scientific merit, and suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that are out of scope, ethically noncompliant, or of insufficient quality may be rejected at this stage without external review (desk rejection).

Manuscripts that pass initial screening are assigned to a Handling Editor with relevant subject expertise and no conflict of interest. The Handling Editor oversees the peer review process, selects reviewers, and provides an editorial recommendation to the Editor-in-Chief.

Each manuscript is evaluated by at least two independent external reviewers with expertise in the subject area of the submission. Reviewers are selected from the journal’s international reviewer pool using editorial judgement and, where appropriate, specialised reviewer databases.

All reviewers are required to declare any potential conflicts of interest before accepting a review invitation.

Reviewers with conflicts must decline the review request.

PCIJ operates a double-blind review model:

• Reviewers do not know the identities of authors
• Authors do not know the identities of reviewers
• Manuscripts must be anonymized prior to review

Reviewer Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on:

• Scientific originality and novelty.
• Clarity and accuracy of the research question.
• Appropriateness of study design and methodology.
• Ethical soundness and compliance with research standards.
• Statistical rigor and interpretation of data.
• Relevance to clinical or scientific practice.
• Quality of writing, structure, and referencing.

Reviewer Recommendations

Each reviewer submits a report with constructive comments and a final recommendation of one of the following:

1. Accept (Publish Unaltered) – Manuscript is scientifically sound and ready for publication.
2. Minor Revision – Acceptable with minor changes or clarifications.
3. Major Revision – Requires substantial revision or additional data before reconsideration.
4. Reject – Does not meet scientific or ethical standards for publication.

• Accept: The paper proceeds to technical editing and publication.
• Minor Revision: Authors are given time to make the requested changes. The editor reviews the revised manuscript to confirm that all comments have been addressed before acceptance.
• Major Revision: Authors are asked to revise and resubmit the manuscript, addressing all reviewer concerns. Revised manuscripts may be sent back to the original reviewers for re-evaluation.
• Reject: The manuscript is declined, and detailed feedback is provided to the authors.

If the majority of reviewers recommend rejection, the manuscript is rejected automatically.

All editorial decisions are final and made solely based on academic merit, scientific accuracy, and ethical integrity.

When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript together with a point-by-point response explaining how each reviewer and editor comment has been addressed.

Revised manuscripts should normally be submitted within the timeframe specified by the editorial office, typically within four weeks. Extensions may be granted upon reasonable request. Failure to submit revisions within the agreed timeframe may result in withdrawal of the manuscript.

Authors may appeal an editorial decision or submit a complaint regarding the editorial process by contacting the Editor-in-Chief within 15 days of the decision.

Appeals should include a clear explanation of the grounds for reconsideration and any relevant supporting information.

Appeals and complaints are handled in accordance with COPE guidance and are reviewed by an independent senior editor or editorial board member who was not involved in the original decision.

• Provide objective and scholarly feedback
• Maintain strict confidentiality
• Declare conflicts of interest
• Not use unpublished data for personal advantage

All manuscripts, reviewer reports, and correspondence are confidential. Personal data of authors, reviewers, and editors are protected in compliance with GDPR and the journal’s data privacy policy.

Early Identification of Editorial Conflicts
At the time of submission, the journal applies procedures to identify manuscripts in which a submitting or contributing author holds an editorial role within PCIJ. When such a potential conflict of interest is identified, the manuscript is immediately removed from the standard editorial workflow and reassigned to an independent senior editor.

Disclosure Requirement
Authors who serve as editors of the journal are required to declare their editorial role in the manuscript’s Conflict of Interest statement. If this disclosure is missing or incomplete, the Editorial Office will request a formal editorial disclosure statement before the manuscript proceeds further.

Independent Editorial Handling
Editor-authored manuscripts are handled exclusively by an editor who has no personal, academic, or professional relationship with the author. The editor-author is excluded from all stages of editorial assessment, peer review coordination, and decision-making.

Documentation and Transparency
The reassignment of the manuscript and the justification for independent handling are recorded in the journal’s editorial management system to ensure transparency, accountability, and audit readiness.

Double-Blind Peer Review
Manuscripts authored by editors undergo the same double-blind peer review process as all other submissions. Each manuscript is reviewed by at least two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise and no known conflicts of interest.

Reviewer Conflict of Interest Declarations
All invited reviewers are required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest prior to accepting the review assignment. Reviewers with declared conflicts are not permitted to participate in the evaluation.

Independent Editorial Decision
The final editorial decision is made solely by the reassigned independent editor, based on reviewer reports and editorial assessment. The editor-author has no involvement in, or influence over, the decision-making process.

Final Ethics and Integrity Checks
Before acceptance, the manuscript undergoes a final ethics and integrity review, including plagiarism screening and verification of conflict of interest disclosures.

Disclosure in the Published Article
Published articles authored by journal editors include a clear disclosure statement indicating the author’s editorial role and confirming that the manuscript was handled independently.

Editorial Oversight Acknowledgement
The name of the responsible handling editor is displayed in the published article to ensure transparency and editorial accountability.