Initial Editorial Assessment

After submission, each manuscript first undergoes an initial editorial assessment. At this stage, the journal checks whether the manuscript:

• fits the journal’s scope and selected article type

• meets basic scholarly and ethical standards

• is clear enough for review

• is adequately prepared for editorial and peer-review assessment

Possible Desk Rejection

A manuscript may be declined without external peer review if it is clearly outside scope, does not fit the selected article type, is seriously deficient in reporting or presentation, raises major ethical or integrity concerns, or is not sufficiently prepared for fair review.

Peer-Review Model

JPRLS uses article-type-specific review routes:

• Original Research, Brief Reports, and Medical Education Papers: double-anonymous peer review

• Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses, Narrative Reviews, Case Reports and Case Series, Clinical Handles, Pediatric Science Simplified, Guideline Mini Review, and Acute and Critical Care Mini Review: single-anonymous peer review

• Editorials, Viewpoints, and selected front matter: editorial assessment, with external peer review at editorial discretion

For externally reviewed submissions, the journal ordinarily seeks reports from at least two independent peer reviewers. Additional review may be obtained if needed.

Reviewers are selected by the editor-in-chief or handling editor on the basis of being knowledgeable about the subject area of the manuscript and independence. Reviewers should not have conflicts of interest that could reasonably affect, or be perceived to affect, their judgment; the journal avoids selecting reviewers with obvious competing interests, including reviewers from the same institution as any of the authors. The journal also seeks to avoid selecting reviewers who have recent joint publications or other close collaborative relationships with any of the authors. Reviewers provide independent assessments, and, where needed, the journal may invite additional expert review.

Peer review is intended to support fair and informed editorial decision-making and to help authors improve their manuscripts. Reviewer and editor assessment focuses on relevance to the journal’s scope, methodological rigor, technical soundness, ethical and reporting standards, clarity of presentation, and whether the conclusions are adequately supported by the data.

Anonymization

For article types under double-anonymous peer review, authors must upload a blinded manuscript file. Author names and affiliations should appear only on the separate title page and not in the blinded manuscript file.

For article types under single-anonymous peer review, authors do not need to anonymize the manuscript unless specifically requested.

Where double-anonymous review applies, the Editor-in-Chief, any Handling Editor, reviewers, and the Editorial Office shall take all reasonable measures to preserve reviewer anonymity to authors and author anonymity to reviewers throughout peer review, including administrative checks for anonymization, subject to the practical limits of anonymization and the information provided in submitted files.

Editorial Decision

Editorial decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief or, where applicable, by an independent Handling Editor after consideration of the peer reviewers’ reports and the journal’s editorial standards.

If reviewer recommendations differ materially, if the reports are insufficiently reasoned, or if additional specialist input is required, the handling editor may seek one or more additional reviews or make an editorial decision based on the full record. The editorial team monitors the quality, relevance, and objectivity of reviewer reports and may obtain further review where there is a reasonable concern about the fairness or adequacy of a review.

Revision

If revision is requested, submit:

1. a revised manuscript, and

2. a clear, point-by-point response to the reviewers’ and editors’ comments

The revised manuscript may be sent for further review or may be decided on editorially, depending on the case.

Following revision, the handling editor may return the manuscript for further external review or may make a decision on the basis of the revised submission and the full review record, depending on the nature and extent of the revisions.

Additional Materials

During editorial assessment or peer review, the journal may request additional material such as raw data, reporting checklists, study protocols, statistical analysis plans, ethics documentation, permissions, or supplementary files.

Conflicts of Interest in Editorial Handling

The Editor-in-Chief, any Handling Editor, and Editorial Board members must have no actual, potential, or reasonably perceived conflict of interest with respect to the manuscripts they handle. If a conflict exists, or may reasonably be perceived to exist, the manuscript shall be reassigned to an independent Handling Editor with appropriate expertise and no relevant conflict.

If the Editor-in-Chief has a conflict of interest in relation to a submission, full responsibility for reviewer selection, peer-review oversight, editorial correspondence, and the final decision shall be transferred to an independent Handling Editor appointed for that manuscript, and the Editor-in-Chief shall have no involvement in the editorial process for that submission.

Submissions authored or co-authored by the Editor-in-Chief or by a member of the Editorial Board shall be handled under the same standards applied to all other submissions, but entirely by an independent Handling Editor with no relevant conflict of interest. The editor-author shall have no role in reviewer selection, peer-review oversight, editorial deliberation, or the final decision, and shall have no access to confidential peer-review information except as provided to authors in the ordinary course of the review process.

Indicative Timeline

The journal aims to complete the first round of independent peer review in about 4 weeks after a manuscript is sent for review, although this is indicative only.

After Acceptance

After acceptance, the journal may request final or editable files needed for production. These may include:

• final manuscript file

• editable tables

• separate figure files

• supplementary files

• any outstanding forms, declarations, permissions, or metadata needed for publication

Before publication, the corresponding author will receive a proof for review.

Check the proof promptly and carefully for:

• accuracy

• completeness

• production or formatting errors

Corrections at this stage should normally be limited to errors or necessary clarifications, not major rewriting.

Once proofs and any required publication materials have been completed, the article moves into production and is published online.

JPRLS uses a continuous publication model in one annual volume. This means accepted articles are published online as soon as they are ready, without waiting for a scheduled issue.