PCP thanks to the reviewers for their valuable contribution to the journal. The language of the journal is American English. The journal is based on independent and unbiased double-blinded peer-reviewed principles. Only unpublished papers that are not under review for publication elsewhere can be submitted. All articles submitted for publication are strictly reviewed for their originality, quality, methodology, importance, ethical nature and, suitability for the journal.
The editorial and publication processes of PCP are shaped in accordance with the guidelines of the International Council of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME), the Council of Science Editors (CSE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), the World Medical Association (WMA), the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the European Association of Science Editors (EASE), and the International Society of Managing and Technical Editors (ISMTE).
The entire submission process for a manuscript is completed online through the self-explanatory online submission system through the following website: http://pcpjournal.net/.
The reviewers can also reach their personal pages from the same address with their own passwords. If the reviewers have any potential competing interests, they must notify the editor before agreeing to review a submission.
PCP does not allow any form of plagiarism. In accordance with our journal policy, submitted manuscripts are screened with plagiarism software (iThenticate) to detect instances of overlapping and similar text.
The authors should clearly state their compliance with internationally accepted guidelines and the guidelines issued by the relevant authority of their country. The journal requests a copy of the Ethics Committee Approval received from the relevant authority.
Our reviewers are expected to check that the articles comply with the SAGER guidelines and encourage authors to do so. If the reviewers need, they can go through the “Instructions to Authors”.
We encourage our reviewers to explain these questions in your comments.
Academic balance: Are readers likely to come away from the article with an accurate idea of the current state of the field, or would they benefit from inclusion of additional work, alternative theories, etc.? Do the authors dwell excessively on their own work?
Scientific accuracy: Have all the facts been presented clearly and precisely? Is the title of the article appropriate? Are all of the most crucial recent references included and cited? Is the problem significant and concisely stated? Is the appropriate terminology used in the text? Are the methods described comprehensively? Are the figures accurate and easy to follow? Is the results section clear and satisfactory? Are the interpretations and conclusions justified by the results?
Timeliness: Is there a compelling reason to publish on the topic at this time, and have the authors made that reason clear? Do most of the references date from the past 2-5 years, or is there too much reliance on older references? For references, is there too much reliance on reviews instead of original research?
Novelty: Does the manuscript offer readers something new? Does the manuscript contain new and significant information to justify publication? Is there some unique insight or interpretation, or is the manuscript simply a list of results?
Authoritativeness: Are the authors qualified to comment on this topic? Would the manuscript benefit from another author with greater expertise or a background in a different area? Is the language acceptable?
Accessibility: Will non-expert readers and students understand the main message? Is the manuscript structured in a way that makes sense?
Length: Is it necessary to shorten the article? The editor will independently comment on other important aspects of the manuscript, such as language, clarity, and adherence to the journal’s formatting requirements.