Peer Review Process

Peer Review Process


All submissions to Pacific International Jouranal (PIJ)  are subject to independent review.

We have adopted two methods of paper review –

  1. Blind Peer review

We send the original, unpublished article for review by experts in the related field for the "double-blind" review process: authors are not told who reviewed their paper, and reviewers are not told who wrote the paper. The reviewers give their advice on publication opportunities, together with their observations to the editor in chief, which will transmit them to the authors. If the referents have contrary opinions, the editor in chief may ask the opinion of a third referent. Our editorial takes a decision after the review is complete. This review is adopted in the case of a scientific/ technical new research paper.

The Academic Editor performs an initial assessment before inviting a number of potential reviewers to provide a peer-review report. (The Academic Editor can reject a manuscript prior to review if not deemed suitable.) On the basis of the submitted reports the Academic Editor makes one of the following recommendations:

  •   Reject
  •   Consider after Major Changes
  •   Consider after Minor Changes
  •   Publish Unaltered

If the Academic Editor recommends “Reject,” the authors are sent any review reports that have been received and are notified that their manuscript will no longer be considered for publication in the journal.

If the Academic Editor recommends “Consider after Major Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit an updated version of their manuscript with the necessary changes suggested by the reviewers. This might require new data to be collected or a substantial revision of the text. The manuscript is then reassessed by one or more of the original reviewers before the Academic Editor makes a new recommendation.

If the Academic Editor recommends “Consider after Minor Changes,” the authors are notified to prepare and submit a final copy of their manuscript with the required minor changes suggested by the reviewers. Once the Editor is satisfied with the final manuscript, optionally having sought further advice from one or more of the reviewers, the Academic Editor can recommend “Publish Unaltered”.

If the Academic Editor recommends “Publish Unaltered,” the manuscript will undergo a final check by the journal’s editorial office in order to ensure that the manuscript and its review process adhere to the journal’s guidelines and policies. Once done, the authors will be notified of the manuscript’s acceptance.

  1.  Editorial Board Review

This technique of review same is above when the paper is of a literature review nature. The research works conducted by Ph.D. Scholars are assessed through this technique.

The objectives of the peer review process include:

  • To assess the quality of the paper before publication. This review decides whether a paper is fit for publication or not.
  • To provide an expert assessment of the quality and soundness of the submission under review.
  • To provide guidance to the editorial decision-maker in making an informed, fair, and objective decision on whether to accept, accept subject to changes or reject.
  • To provide guidance to authors on improvements to their submission.

Sources of Peer Reviewers

Reviewers are drawn from the journal’s editorial board and volunteer peer reviewer pool.  Occasionally reviewers identified as being suitable through different sources will be approached.

Note: Recommendations from authors of peer reviewers from other institutions are accepted and the authors need to send us the name, affiliations, and official email id and contact no.