Peer Review Policy

The Journal of Pulmonology and Respiratory Research (JPRR) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review to ensure the quality, integrity, and relevance of published research. Our peer review process is designed to be fair, transparent, and rigorous, in line with best practices from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the ICMJE, and the WAME.

Type of Peer Review

JPRR employs a double-blind peer review process, where:

  • The identities of authors are concealed from reviewers.
  • The identities of reviewers are concealed from authors.

This model reduces bias and ensures impartial evaluation of the work based solely on scientific merit.

Peer Review Workflow

  1. Initial Screening: Submissions are assessed by the editorial office for scope, formatting, and plagiarism checks.
  2. Editorial Review: The Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor evaluates suitability and assigns reviewers.
  3. Reviewer Assignment: At least two independent experts review the manuscript.
  4. Reviewer Reports: Reviewers provide constructive feedback on originality, methodology, ethics, and clarity.
  5. Decision: Based on reports, the editor may accept, request revisions, or reject the manuscript.
  6. Revision and Resubmission: Authors respond to reviewer comments and resubmit for further assessment.
  7. Final Decision: Acceptance decisions are made by the Editor-in-Chief.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected based on expertise, academic background, and lack of conflicts of interest. JPRR maintains a diverse pool of reviewers across disciplines in respiratory medicine.

Reviewer Responsibilities

  • Provide objective, constructive, and timely reviews.
  • Maintain confidentiality of manuscript content.
  • Identify ethical concerns, plagiarism, or conflicts of interest.
  • Suggest improvements to strengthen the scientific quality of manuscripts.

Editorial Responsibilities

Editors ensure that manuscripts are reviewed fairly and impartially. They mediate disputes, manage ethical issues, and guarantee that final decisions are based solely on scientific merit.

Transparency in Peer Review

While JPRR follows a double-blind model, we are committed to transparency. Authors are provided with detailed reviewer feedback, and editorial decisions include rationales. In some cases, JPRR may publish peer review reports with author consent.

Turnaround Time

JPRR strives for efficiency without compromising quality. The average review cycle takes 3–5 weeks, with revisions reviewed promptly to ensure timely publication.

Appeals and Complaints

Authors may appeal editorial decisions by submitting a detailed justification. Appeals are considered by the Editor-in-Chief and, if necessary, additional reviewers. Complaints about peer review handling are addressed in accordance with COPE guidelines.

Ethics in Peer Review

Reviewers and editors are expected to:

  • Respect confidentiality of manuscripts.
  • Avoid using information for personal gain.
  • Declare conflicts of interest prior to accepting review invitations.
  • Adhere to COPE’s Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers.

FAQs

How many reviewers assess each manuscript?

Typically, at least two independent experts are assigned. For multidisciplinary studies, additional reviewers may be involved.

Are reviewers acknowledged?

Yes. Reviewers are periodically recognized in annual acknowledgments while maintaining confidentiality of individual reports.

Can authors suggest reviewers?

Yes. Authors may suggest potential reviewers, though the editorial team reserves the right to make final assignments.

Conclusion

The Journal of Pulmonology and Respiratory Research (JPRR) ensures that its peer review process upholds fairness, transparency, and academic excellence. Through rigorous review, JPRR maintains the integrity and quality of published research in respiratory medicine.