Peer Review Policy
Poornaprajna International Journal of Basic Sciences (PIJBS)
The Poornaprajna International Journal of Basic Sciences (PIJBS) follows a rigorous, transparent, fair, and academically responsible double-blind peer review process for all manuscripts submitted to the journal. The objective of peer review is to ensure the originality, scientific validity, clarity, ethical soundness, and scholarly contribution of every article published in the journal. PIJBS is committed to maintaining the integrity of academic publishing by following ethical review practices inspired by the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and by using the editorial workflow facilities of the Open Journal Systems platform.
1. Nature of Peer Review
PIJBS adopts a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are kept confidential throughout the review process. Authors are required to submit anonymized manuscripts without names, affiliations, acknowledgements, self-identifying references, or document metadata that may reveal their identity. Reviewers are also expected to maintain strict confidentiality and must not disclose, discuss, copy, or use any part of the manuscript for personal or professional advantage before publication.
2. Initial Editorial Screening
Every manuscript submitted to PIJBS first undergoes an initial editorial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or assigned Section Editor. At this stage, the manuscript is examined for its relevance to the scope of the journal, adherence to author guidelines, academic structure, language quality, originality, ethical compliance, reference style, and general suitability for peer review. Manuscripts that are incomplete, outside the scope of basic sciences, poorly prepared, previously published, or ethically problematic may be returned to authors or rejected without external review.
3. Plagiarism and Originality Check
Before sending the manuscript for peer review, the editorial office may conduct a similarity/plagiarism check using appropriate software or manual assessment. Manuscripts showing unacceptable similarity, unattributed copying, data duplication, fabricated content, or unethical reuse of previously published material will be rejected or returned for clarification. Authors are responsible for ensuring that their work is original and that all sources, data, figures, tables, and ideas borrowed from others are properly cited.
4. Selection of Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to two or more independent reviewers with relevant subject expertise. Reviewers may be selected from the journal’s reviewer database, editorial network, institutional experts, or recognized researchers in the concerned discipline. The editorial team ensures, as far as possible, that reviewers have no direct conflict of interest with the authors, institution, funding body, or research topic. Reviewers must accept assignments only when they possess the required expertise and can provide an unbiased, constructive, and timely evaluation. COPE emphasizes that reviewers should declare conflicts of interest and accept review assignments only when they can review responsibly and impartially.
5. Review Criteria
Reviewers are requested to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
- Relevance to the aims and scope of PIJBS
- Originality and novelty of the research problem
- Clarity of objectives, hypotheses, or research questions
- Soundness of methodology, experimental design, or theoretical framework
- Accuracy of data analysis, interpretation, and discussion
- Contribution to basic sciences or interdisciplinary knowledge
- Adequacy and currency of references
- Ethical compliance, including research involving humans, animals, data, or sensitive materials
- Clarity of language, organization, presentation, tables, figures, and conclusions
- Overall publishability and academic value of the manuscript
6. Reviewer Recommendations
After evaluation, reviewers may recommend one of the following decisions:
- Accept without revision
- Accept with minor revision
- Major revision required
- Resubmit for review
- Reject
The reviewer’s recommendation is advisory. The final editorial decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or assigned editor, who considers the reviewers’ reports, manuscript quality, ethical compliance, journal scope, and author response.
7. Review Timeline
PIJBS normally aims to complete the peer review process within approximately six to eight weeks, depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, revision quality, and editorial workload. The journal makes reasonable efforts to avoid unnecessary delay while ensuring that scholarly quality is not compromised. Authors may check the status of their submission through OJS or communicate with the editorial office when necessary.
8. Revision and Author Response
When revisions are requested, authors must submit a revised manuscript along with a clear response document explaining how each reviewer comment has been addressed. Changes should be highlighted or described systematically. If the authors disagree with any reviewer suggestion, they must provide a polite and academically justified explanation. Revised manuscripts may be assessed by the editor alone or may be sent back to the original reviewers for further evaluation.
9. Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Editors, reviewers, editorial staff, and other persons involved in the review process must not disclose manuscript details to anyone outside the editorial process. Reviewers must not use unpublished information, arguments, data, or interpretations from the manuscript for their own research or advantage. Confidentiality continues even after the review process is completed.
10. Conflict of Interest
Editors and reviewers must declare any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest that may affect impartial judgment. Conflicts may include personal relationships, institutional affiliation, academic competition, financial interests, recent collaboration, supervisory relationships, or ideological bias. If a conflict exists, the reviewer or editor must withdraw from the process, and the manuscript will be reassigned to another qualified person.
11. Ethical Responsibilities of Reviewers
Reviewers are expected to provide fair, evidence-based, respectful, and constructive comments. Personal criticism of authors is not acceptable. Reviewers should focus on improving the scholarly quality of the manuscript and should clearly distinguish between mandatory corrections and optional suggestions. They should alert the editor if they suspect plagiarism, duplicate publication, data fabrication, unethical experimentation, inappropriate citation manipulation, or other forms of publication misconduct. COPE guidelines underline that peer reviewers play a central role in protecting the integrity of scholarly publication and must conduct reviews ethically and responsibly.
12. Editorial Decision-Making
The editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions: accept, request minor revision, request major revision, resubmit for review, or reject. In cases where reviewers provide conflicting recommendations, the editor may seek an additional review or make a decision based on the strength of the arguments provided. Editorial decisions are based solely on academic merit, originality, relevance, ethical compliance, and contribution to knowledge.
13. Handling of Misconduct During Review
If misconduct is suspected during peer review, PIJBS may pause the review process and seek clarification from the authors. Cases involving plagiarism, duplicate submission, manipulated data, authorship disputes, fake reviewer identity, citation manipulation, or unethical research practice will be handled in accordance with accepted publication ethics procedures and COPE guidance. The journal reserves the right to reject the manuscript, inform relevant institutions, issue corrections, retract published articles, or take other appropriate action depending on the seriousness of the case.
14. Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools
Authors, reviewers, and editors must use artificial intelligence tools responsibly. AI tools may be used for language improvement, grammar correction, formatting assistance, or preliminary technical support, but they must not replace human scholarly judgment. Authors remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, citations, data, interpretation, and ethical integrity of their manuscript. Reviewers must not upload confidential manuscripts or unpublished research content into public AI tools without explicit permission from the journal.
15. Appeals and Complaints
Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that a significant procedural error, misunderstanding, or unfair assessment has occurred. Appeals must be submitted with a clear explanation and supporting evidence. The Editor-in-Chief may review the case, consult another editor, or obtain an additional independent review. The appeal decision will be final. Complaints related to editorial process, review delay, ethical concerns, or reviewer conduct will be handled with fairness and confidentiality.
16. Final Acceptance and Publication
A manuscript is accepted for publication only after satisfactory completion of peer review, revision, editorial assessment, plagiarism verification, formatting, and proof correction. Acceptance does not depend on the author’s institutional status, nationality, gender, seniority, or personal background. PIJBS is committed to providing a fair and inclusive scholarly platform for researchers, academicians, professionals, and students working in basic sciences and related interdisciplinary fields.
17. Commitment to Quality and Integrity
Through its peer review policy, PIJBS seeks to promote responsible research communication, academic excellence, transparency, and public trust in scholarly publishing. The journal values reviewers as essential contributors to the quality of published research and acknowledges their role in strengthening the academic standards of the journal.
