Peer Review Policy

The Pakistan Journal of Clinical Research (PJCR) enforces a comprehensive double-blind peer review framework to guarantee the scientific integrity, clinical validity, and overall academic quality of all published biomedical literature. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a structured and transparent evaluation pipeline managed entirely through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) editorial workflow, ensuring that all publication decisions remain completely independent of commercial, political, or personal influence.

Initial Editorial Screening and Pre-Review Evaluation

Upon formal submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial internal screening by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors. This preliminary evaluation checks for alignment with the journal scope, basic formatting adherence, data completeness, and strict ethical compliance including automated plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that exhibit substantial structural deficiencies, clear ethical non-compliance, or a complete lack of clinical relevance will be desk-rejected at this stage without entering external review, and authors will be notified promptly.

Double-Blind External Review Mechanism

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent external peer reviewers who possess verified academic credentials and specific expertise in the manuscript's exact medical sub-specialty. To ensure an unbiased evaluation, the journal utilizes a double-blind review system where the identities of the authors are completely concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are permanently hidden from the authors. Authors are required to submit anonymized manuscripts with all identifying institutional and personal metadata stripped from the files prior to external assignment.

Review Criteria and Evaluative Parameters

External reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on strict criteria centered on scientific rigor, methodological soundness, clinical originality, statistical accuracy, data integrity, clarity of presentation, and reproducibility. Reviewers are required to explicitly declare any potential financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment, and they must treat all manuscript materials as strictly confidential. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, ethical, objective, and timely feedback within the journal's designated evaluation timelines.

Editorial Decisions and Appeals Framework

The final decision authority rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling Editor, based on the collective recommendations provided by the external reviewers. Editorial decisions are categorized as acceptance without changes, minor revisions required, major revisions required, or total rejection. Authors receiving revision decisions must submit a detailed, line-by-line response to all reviewer critiques within the specified deadline. In cases where authors dispute a final editorial rejection, a formal appeal may be submitted to the editorial office, which will be evaluated independently according to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

The Pakistan Journal of Clinical Research (PJCR) enforces a comprehensive double-blind peer review framework to guarantee the scientific integrity, clinical validity, and overall academic quality of all published biomedical literature. Every submitted manuscript undergoes a structured and transparent evaluation pipeline managed entirely through the Open Journal Systems (OJS) editorial workflow, ensuring that all publication decisions remain completely independent of commercial, political, or personal influence.

Initial Editorial Screening and Pre-Review Evaluation

Upon formal submission, all manuscripts undergo an initial internal screening by the Editor-in-Chief or designated Section Editors. This preliminary evaluation checks for alignment with the journal scope, basic formatting adherence, data completeness, and strict ethical compliance including automated plagiarism screening. Manuscripts that exhibit substantial structural deficiencies, clear ethical non-compliance, or a complete lack of clinical relevance will be desk-rejected at this stage without entering external review, and authors will be notified promptly.

Double-Blind External Review Mechanism

Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to a minimum of two independent external peer reviewers who possess verified academic credentials and specific expertise in the manuscript's exact medical sub-specialty. To ensure an unbiased evaluation, the journal utilizes a double-blind review system where the identities of the authors are completely concealed from the reviewers, and the identities of the reviewers are permanently hidden from the authors. Authors are required to submit anonymized manuscripts with all identifying institutional and personal metadata stripped from the files prior to external assignment.

Review Criteria and Evaluative Parameters

External reviewers evaluate manuscripts based on strict criteria centered on scientific rigor, methodological soundness, clinical originality, statistical accuracy, data integrity, clarity of presentation, and reproducibility. Reviewers are required to explicitly declare any potential financial, institutional, or personal conflicts of interest before accepting a review assignment, and they must treat all manuscript materials as strictly confidential. Reviewers are expected to provide constructive, ethical, objective, and timely feedback within the journal's designated evaluation timelines.

Editorial Decisions and Appeals Framework

The final decision authority rests exclusively with the Editor-in-Chief or the designated Handling Editor, based on the collective recommendations provided by the external reviewers. Editorial decisions are categorized as acceptance without changes, minor revisions required, major revisions required, or total rejection. Authors receiving revision decisions must submit a detailed, line-by-line response to all reviewer critiques within the specified deadline. In cases where authors dispute a final editorial rejection, a formal appeal may be submitted to the editorial office, which will be evaluated independently according to the guidelines set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).