Editorial Workflow

  1. Peer Review Model

           JPRM operates a peer review system, ensuring that:

  • Authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.

          This approach is designed to promote objectivity and fairness in the evaluation process.

  1. Editorial Screening

           Upon submission:

  • The Editorial Board performs an initial screening to verify scope, format compliance, and plagiarism check (using standard tools).
  • Manuscripts that do not meet minimum quality or ethical standards are desk-rejected without external review.
  1. Reviewer Selection
  • Each manuscript is assigned to two independent expert reviewers with relevant expertise.
  • Reviewers are selected based on academic credentials, publication record, and experience in the manuscript’s subject area.
  • Reviewers must declare any potential conflict of interest before accepting the review.
  1. Review Criteria

          Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on:

  • Originality and significance of the results.
  • Mathematical correctness and rigor.
  • Clarity of exposition and structure.
  • Relevance to the aims and scope of the journal.
  • Proper referencing and positioning within existing literature.

          Each reviewer provides:

  • A detailed report with comments.
  • A recommendation: Accept / Minor Revision / Major Revision / Reject.
  1. Editorial Decision
  • The Editorial Board makes the final decision based on reviewers’ feedback.
  • In case of contradictory reviews, a third reviewer may be invited.
  • Authors receive a compiled decision letter with anonymized reviewer comments and required revisions.
  1. Revisions & Re-Review
  • Authors must submit revised manuscripts with a point-by-point response to reviewers’ comments.
  • Revised submissions may be sent to the original reviewers for re-evaluation, depending on the extent of revision.
  1. Timeline
  • Initial decision (acceptance for review or desk rejection): within 1–2 weeks.
  • Full review process: 2–4 weeks on average.
  1. Confidentiality & Ethics
  • All submissions and reviews are treated as confidential.
  • The journal adheres to COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines to handle cases of:
    • Plagiarism
    • Duplicate submission
    • Authorship disputes
    • Ethical misconduct
  1. Appeals and Complaints
  • Authors may appeal decisions by writing to the Editor-in-Chief with a detailed justification.
  • Appeals are reviewed by an independent editorial board member or an external expert.
  1. Reviewer Acknowledgment
  • JPRM maintains a confidential database of active reviewers.
  • Outstanding reviewers are acknowledged annually on the website (with consent).