Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Pakistan Association of Dermatologists (JPAD) employs a rigorous double-blind peer review system. Below are the responsibilities and guidelines for reviewers and editors in the peer review process:

Reviewers Responsibilities:

Reviewers are expected to critically evaluate manuscripts and provide constructive feedback to help authors improve their work.

Reviewers must assess the originality, significance, study design, methods, results presentation, important findings, confounding factors, strength of conclusions, and overall quality of the manuscript.

Reviewers should make recommendations to the editor regarding the suitability of the manuscript for publication, providing narrative comments to support their recommendations.

Reviewers must disclose any conflicts of interest and decline to review manuscripts where such conflicts exist.

Reviewers should treat manuscripts as confidential documents and complete reviews promptly, meeting the agreed-upon deadlines.

Reviewers should refrain from making derogatory comments and not use the work described in the manuscript.

Reviewers should not communicate directly with authors or reveal their identities unless explicitly allowed by the editor.

The editor will offer guidance to reviewers, especially those new to the process, on how they should assess the manuscript and fulfill their dual role of offering helpful feedback to the author and providing advice to the editor.

Reviewers are expected to adhere to the agreed-upon deadline, typically five to six weeks, for completing their manuscript reviews and should respond to any reminders sent to them.


Identification of Evaluation of the Peer Reviewers:

The editor maintains a reviewer database with expertise details and contact information.

Reviewers are selected based on their expertise, affiliation, and suitability for the manuscript.

Authors may suggest potential reviewers, but the editor has the final decision on reviewer selection.

Reviewers are contacted and asked for their willingness to review a specific manuscript within a specified timeframe.

The editor is responsible for keeping track of reviewers, and taking steps to make sure reviews are completed in a timely manner.

Each peer review is rated by the editor assigned to the manuscript and stored with the reviewer’s profile in the reviewer database. This rating becomes part of the reviewing history of each peer reviewer, and can be viewed by the editors as they select potential reviewers for future manuscripts. The reviewer database also contains information on the reviewers’ areas of expertise; the number of previous invitations to review and number accepted; dates of submitted reviews, and days taken to produce reviews. Reviewers who consistently decline invitations or who write brief unhelpful reviews are eventually removed from the database.

To avoid overworking reviewers, each reviewer will be asked to evaluate no more than one manuscript per month. Reviewer has the right to decline the review due to any reason.

Rewarding Reviewers:

Reviewers receive a "thank you" email upon completing the review.

Reviewers can request a review-credit certificate signed by the editor.


Decision Making and Communication to Authors:

Editors make decisions (accept, invite revision, or reject) based on reviewer comments, their own critique, and journal criteria.

Editors communicate decisions to authors, providing explanations and guidance for revisions if necessary.

Authors are encouraged to revise manuscripts for potential acceptance, with clear instructions on essential revisions.

In cases of contradictory reviewer comments, the editor makes the final decision and guides authors accordingly.


Note: Review details are kept confidential but can be shared with indexing agencies and regulatory bodies upon request or during journal evaluations.