Reviewer Guidlines
    A good review is supportive, constructive, thoughtful, and fair. It identifies both strengths and weaknesses, and offers concrete.

A bad review is superficial, nasty, petty, self-serving, or arrogant. It indulges the reviewer’s biases with no justification. It focuses exclusively on weaknesses and offers no specific suggestions for improvement.
    While reviewing a manuscript, reviewers are requested to consider following points:

1 Why the study was conducted?
2 Why the subject title is important to be explored?
3 How the authors have conducted the task?
4 Are the procedures and comments of the task suitable and adequate?
5 What is outcome of the task, the authors have declared?
6 Are the findings clearly described in the manuscript?
7 How advanced knowledge of the field is stated in the manuscript?
8 How well the authors have placed their findings within the context of ongoing scholarly inquiry about this topic?
9 Have authors answered the above questions and can you detect the logic consistently from the opening paragraphs to the conclusion?
10 Is groundwork satisfactory and clearly laid to guide readers into the topic that is being addressed in opening paragraph?

    Reviewers should focus on following points:

1 Do the results tell a story—taking the reader from the research questions posed earlier to their answers in the data? Is the logic clear?
2 Are the tables and figures clear and summarized? Can the major findings easily be read by themselves or additional information should be provided? Are the authors’ tables consistent with the format of currently accepted norms regarding data presentation? Are the tables and/or figures necessary?
3 Is undigested data obscured rather than advance the cumulative development of knowledge in the subject field?
4 Are the results presented both statistically and substantively meaningful?
    Your evaluation to the editor about following points (a) Rejected for this journal? (b) Does it show sufficient promise for revision, should be clearly demonstrated in your review to encourage the authors to invest significant time and energy in revision for this journal. Your bottom-line advice to the editor is crucial. Make a decision; state it clearly in your remarks to the editor in the space provided. Remember that not all of the articles submitted to a journal will be published.

    Reasons to reject a manuscript:

1 The issues have already been addressed in prior studies
2 The data have been collected in such a way as to preclude useful investigation 3. The manuscript is not ready for publication—it is incomplete, in the improper format, or error-ridden  
.  Most rejected articles do find a home in other journals. Don’t tease authors with hopes for publication in the PJS.
Note: The names of the reviewers will be added at the end of the journal.


    QUICK LINKS            
  Final Editorial board PJS indexed in ISI
  Council Members Terms of Use
  Instructions to Authors Privacy Policy
  Subscription Disclaimers
  Guidelines for Reviewers
  @ 2018 PJS - All rights reserved
Powered by Zealous Soft (Pvt.) Limited