Peer Review Process

Reviewer Section

Ø Guidelines for Manuscript Reviewers

Ø The Peer-Review Process

Ø Manuscript Numbering

Ø Time Period for Reviews

Ø  Reviewer Responsibilities

1.     Guidelines for Manuscript Reviewers

EJPT reviewers are inquired to comment on the originality and significance of the research, appropriateness of the research design, adequacy of the methodology and experimental techniques, interpretations and discussion of the findings, soundness of the conclusions, and clarity of the writing.

our ultimate purpose is to maintain the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor-quality articles 

2.     The Peer-Review Process

  • The journal is committed to providing an efficient service for both, authors and readers. Our blind peer-review system along with the editorial board of independent editors provides a mean of rapid and fair publication decisions. 
  • Once a manuscript is received, the peer review process is started as shown in the following diagram

3.     Manuscript Numbering

  • Each manuscript is assigned a tracking number once it is received.
  • This code is unique for any manuscript submitted in the journal. 
  • For any questions regarding EJPT's manuscript review coordination, please call the office.

4.     Time Period for Reviews

  • Reviewers must complete their reviews and submit them within 2 weeks after having received a manuscript and the overall process of peer reviewing completed within 1 month.
  • All reviews are tracked, and late reviewers are contacted to remind them that their reviews are overdue. After late reviewers have been given 2 reminders, the editor may proceed without their reviews.

5.     Reviewer Responsibilities

•       Perform a critical review of the manuscript.

•       Provide well-founded, constructive criticism and suggestions for the enhancement and adequacy of the manuscript.

•       Inform the editor of any areas in the manuscript that you feel inadequate to critique.

•       Provide justification for your confidential recommendation within your review. For example, if you cannot recommend acceptance because of faulty research design, identify the design as a limitation to the author