SUBMISSION

Published biannually (April and August) with 15 manuscripts per issue, PJPES is fully digital and open access, ensuring global availability of all published work and knowledge in these fields.

Reciprocal Contribution in the Peer Review Process

Reviewing journal manuscripts is a crucial professional practice that makes a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge in related fields. Therefore, authors who submit manuscripts to PJPES are generally invited to reciprocate by serving as peer reviewers for relevant manuscripts.

Double-Blind Peer Review Process

PJPES implements a double-blind peer review system, in which the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed from each other. This process is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing and the ethical dissemination of knowledge. Reviewers are appointed by the Editor-in-Chief from among subject-matter experts, to evaluate manuscripts objectively. The aim is to ensure accuracy, validity, and quality before publication. All complete manuscripts are reviewed according to the following principles:

• Conduct reviews fairly and professionally.

• Avoid making any personal remarks about the authors.

• Provide clear and well-founded justifications for all comments.

• Structure reviews systematically to help authors improve their work.

• Offer constructive criticism aimed at enhancing the manuscript’s quality.
  
  
  

Quality and Oversight of Peer Review

All submissions are initially screened by the Editorial Board to ensure alignment with the journal’s scope and relevance to its readership. Manuscripts meeting the criteria are sent for peer review by one or two subject experts. In special cases, specialists in areas such as statistics or methodology may be consulted. The quality of reviewer reports is assessed by the Editor-in-Chief, and performance records are used to guide reappointments. All reviewer performance data remain confidential and accessible only to the Editor-in-Chief. Reviewers must avoid any action or statement that might reveal their identity to authors. Reviewers are encouraged to recommend actions on manuscripts; however, final decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief, particularly in cases of conflicting reviews. The Editor-in-Chief ensures ongoing support for enhancing peer review quality through regular, structured evaluation.

Peer Review Workflow

A workflow diagram is provided to outline the stages of manuscript processing, the expected time frames, and the roles of all parties involved.