Accessibility Tools

For Reviewers

Applications to become a reviewer of JPCTs

We welcome applications to become part of our community of peer reviewers. To become a reviewer of JPCTs, please contact

Guidelines for conducting a peer review for JPCTs

The reviewer’s report is expected to offer a thorough critique of the submission and encompass more than just a few brief sentences. 

JPCTs provide a review form to help reviewers give feedback to authors. The feedback provided in the form should be constructive toward authors, particularly when recommendations for revisions are made. While expectations may differ across disciplines, certain fundamental aspects that reviewers should critique might include:

  • Were Author Instructions followed?
  • Does the study meet all applicable standards for ethical examination and research integrity?
  • Were the results published elsewhere?
  • Were the methods and design used relevant?
  • Are the research questions present valid?
  • Were ethics committee approval obtained of required?
  • Are statistics/analysis if provided relevant to the study?
  • Does the overall structure, as described in the Author’s Instructions, have any major structural or grammatical errors?

To facilitate authors in receiving timely reviews, it is requested that reviewer reports be submitted by email on the agreed deadline. Reviewers are advised to contact JPCTs in case they cannot meet the deadline so that an alternative date can be scheduled.

Reviewers are encouraged to focus their reports on objectively critiquing the scientific components of the manuscript. At the end of the form in their review, we ask reviewers to recommend one of the following actions:

  • Consider  as Submitted
  • Consider After Minor Revisions
  • Consider After Major Revisions
  • Reject as Submitted

Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the final decision rests with the Editor and Editor-In-Chief.

Publication Ethics:

Peer review is based on trust and voluntary participation, with all participants expected to behave ethically. Journals must establish transparent peer review policies, and reviewers are expected to conduct reviews ethically and responsibly. Any concerns should be reported to the Editor-In-Chief.


Manuscripts under peer review are kept confidential. Details are not shared outside of the peer review process. Feedback and related comments related to the peer process are kept anonymous. To ensure anonymous feedback, the author’s names and affiliations will be removed from the manuscript for review.

Conflict of Interest:

Reviewers should remove themselves from the peer review process when there is a conflict of interest

To top