Peer Review Process

 
 
 

COPE · ICMJE · Double-Blind · AI Declaration

Peer Review Process

PTJI applies a rigorous double-blind peer review process to ensure the scientific quality, integrity, and objectivity of all published articles.

Double-Blind Review 2 Independent Reviewers COPE Compliant AI Declaration Required

Double-Blind Peer Review

The review process at PTJI is double-blind, which means that neither the reviewer's nor the author's identities are ever disclosed to the other party at any stage of the review. This approach ensures objective, unbiased evaluation of the scientific merit of each submission.

Each submission is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. The final editorial decision is made by the Editor-in-Chief based on the reviewers' recommendations, following the guidelines set by COPE and ICMJE.

Submission Flowchart

PTJI Submission and Peer Review Flowchart

Step-by-Step Process

1

Submission & Blinding

Authors must prepare their manuscripts in a way that conceals their identity to facilitate the double-blind review. Submit two separate files:

File 1 — Title Page

  • Full article title
  • All author names and affiliations
  • Corresponding author's full address, phone, and email
  • Author contributions (ICMJE)
  • Conflict of interest declaration
  • Funding sources
  • Acknowledgments

File 2 — Blinded Manuscript

  • No author names or affiliations
  • No acknowledgments section
  • No funding information
  • Figures must not contain institutional identifiers
  • File name must be anonymous
  • Document properties must be cleared of author metadata

Self-Reference Blinding Rules

  • Refer to your own prior work in the third person — instead of "as we have shown before," write "... has been shown before [Anonymous, 2007]"
  • In the text, cite your own works as: [Anonymous, 2007]
  • In the reference list, write: [Anonymous 2007] Information withheld for double-blind reviewing
  • Limit self-references only to those essential for understanding the current work
2

Initial Evaluation by Editor

Every submission undergoes an initial editorial assessment before being sent to peer reviewers. Manuscripts that do not pass this stage are returned to the authors without external review. The evaluation covers:

Scope & Aims Fit Grammar & Language Quality Manuscript Structure Ethics Statement Present Plagiarism Screening (Turnitin) Blinding Compliance Mandatory Forms Submitted
3

External Peer Review

Manuscripts that pass the initial evaluation are sent to a minimum of two independent external reviewers with relevant expertise. Reviewers assess scientific rigor, originality, methodology, data interpretation, and the relevance of conclusions.

Reviewer Resources & Checklists

Reviewers are encouraged to use structured checklists appropriate to the manuscript type:

Possible Review Outcomes

Accept

Ready for editorial processing

Minor Revisions

Author responds within 14 days

Major Revisions

Full re-review required

Reject

Does not meet PTJI standards

Authors have 14 days to respond to reviewer questions and resubmit revised manuscripts. The reviewer will re-evaluate the revised manuscript before making a final recommendation to the Editor.

4

Editorial Procedure & Publication

Manuscripts that pass peer review are forwarded to the Editor-in-Chief for final proofreading and copyediting. The author must review and approve the final galley proof before publication. Minor corrections suggested by the editor may be incorporated at this stage.

Final Copyediting Galley Proof Approval DOI Assignment PDF Galley Production Online Publication
 

COPE 2023 · ICMJE 2023 · Updated Policy

AI Use & Declaration in Peer Review

For Reviewers

✅ Permitted Uses

  • Grammar and language checking of the review text
  • Literature search assistance to find relevant references
  • Formatting or organizing reviewer comments
  • Translation assistance (reviewer must verify accuracy)

❌ Not Permitted

  • Using AI to write or generate the review report
  • Uploading any part of the confidential manuscript to AI tools
  • Using AI to make the Accept/Reject recommendation
  • Submitting AI-generated review text without disclosure
  • Using AI to assess statistical methods or replicate data analysis without expert oversight

⚠️ Confidentiality Warning

Reviewers must never upload any part of the submitted manuscript to a public AI tool (ChatGPT, Gemini, Copilot, Claude, etc.). Manuscripts are confidential documents — uploading them constitutes a serious breach of the peer review agreement and COPE guidelines, and may result in the reviewer being removed from PTJI's panel.

Mandatory AI Disclosure for Reviewers

If AI tools were used in any permitted capacity during the review process, reviewers must disclose this in the "Confidential Comments to the Editor" field with the following information:

  • Name and version of the AI tool used
  • Specific purpose (e.g., "Used [Tool] for grammar checking of review text only")
  • Confirmation that no manuscript content was uploaded to the tool

For Authors — AI Declaration in Submitted Manuscripts

Authors who used AI tools at any stage of manuscript preparation must declare this in the manuscript. The declaration must appear in the Methods section (for AI used in research-related tasks) or in the Acknowledgments (for AI used in language editing or formatting). The declaration must specify:

Tool Name & Version

e.g., ChatGPT-4o, Grammarly Pro

Purpose of Use

Specific task performed

Section Where Used

Which part of manuscript

???? Example Declaration

"The authors used Grammarly (v. 2024) for grammar and spelling corrections of the final manuscript draft. ChatGPT-4o was used to assist in searching relevant literature in Section 2.1 (Introduction). The scientific content, data, methodology, and conclusions are solely the responsibility of the authors. No AI-generated text was submitted without review and verification by the authors."

Important: AI tools cannot be listed as authors. Authors are fully accountable for all content in the manuscript, including any AI-assisted portions. Undisclosed AI use will be treated as a breach of publication ethics and may result in rejection or retraction.

Indicative Timeline

1–3

Days

Initial evaluation by editor

4–6

Weeks

Peer review process

14

Days

Author revision window

1–2

Weeks

Editorial & production

Governed By

COPE ICMJE Double-Blind Review COPE AI Position 2023 Turnitin Publons Declaration of Helsinki