Prithvi Journal of Academic Research & Development (PJARD)

Peer review is a cornerstone of the scholarly publication process. It ensures that manuscripts meet the standards of academic excellence, originality, and ethical research practices. At Prithvi Journal of Academic Research & Development (PJARD), we operate a double-blind peer review system, where both reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.

The insights and feedback provided by reviewers are critical for:

1. • Assisting editors in making publication decisions
2. • Helping authors improve the quality and clarity of their manuscripts
3. • Upholding the integrity of the scholarly record

✅ Before Accepting a Review Invitation

Reviewers should accept an invitation only if they:

1. • Have subject-matter expertise relevant to the manuscript
2. • Can dedicate adequate time to provide a thorough, unbiased, and constructive review
3. • Have no conflict of interest with the manuscript or its authors

If unable to review, please notify the editorial office promptly so alternative reviewers can be assigned.

⚠️ Conflict of Interest (COI)

As defined by WAME:
“A conflict of interest exists when there is a divergence between an individual’s private interests and their responsibilities to scientific and publishing activities, potentially affecting impartial judgment.”
Reviewers must:

1. • Disclose any conflicts of interest (personal, financial, institutional, or professional)
2. • Recuse themselves from reviewing manuscripts where COI exists

Reviewers with doubts about possible conflicts should consult the Editor-in-Chief before proceeding.

🔒 Confidentiality

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents. Reviewers must:

1. • Not share, copy, discuss, or disclose the manuscript or its contents
2. • Not use any information from the manuscript for personal or professional benefit
3. • Maintain confidentiality during and after the review process

All materials should be deleted or destroyed after review completion.

❌ Plagiarism & Ethical Use of Information

Reviewers must not:

1. • Plagiarize any part of the manuscript
2. • Use manuscript data or ideas for personal advantage
3. • Undermine or discredit authors

Any suspected case of plagiarism, duplicate submission, or research misconduct should be reported to the Editor immediately.

⚖️ Fairness and Impartiality

Reviews must be:

1. • Honest, respectful, and free from bias
2. • Not influenced by the author’s nationality, gender, institutional affiliation, political/religious views, or ethnicity
3. • Undermine or discredit authors

Focus should always remain on the quality of the research and its scientific contribution

🔍 Review Criteria

While reviewing, please assess the manuscript on the following:

✍️ Review Report Guidelines

A high-quality review should be:

1. • Objective, detailed, and constructive
2. • Backed with facts, references, or scholarly reasoning
3. • Written in respectful, professional language

Avoid:

1. • Hostile or dismissive comments
2. • Vague remarks like “poor quality” without explanation
3. • Rewriting the entire manuscript—focus on suggesting improvements

✍️ Structure of the Review Report:

1. • General Comments (summary and first impression)
2. • Specific Comments (section-by-section observations)
3. • Confidential Remarks to the Editor (if applicable)
4. • Final Recommendation (select one from below)

⏳ Timeliness

Reviewers should respond within the timeframe specified in the review invitation. If a delay is anticipated, contact the editorial office immediately.

Prompt reviews help maintain the efficiency and credibility of the publication process.

📌 Recommendation Categories

Please choose the most appropriate recommendation and justify it with specific observations:

1. • ✅ Accept – Publish as is
2. • ✍️ Minor Revision – Needs small improvements, no re-review required
3. • 🔄 Moderate Revision – Needs some changes, re-review optional
4. • 🔧 Major Revision – Substantial changes required, re-review necessary
5. • 🚫 Reject – Does not meet standards; not suitable for this journal
6. • 📤 Refer Elsewhere – Suggest submission to a more suitable journal