Pakistan Journal of Chemistry

Pakistan Journal of Chemistry

For Reviewers

The Pakistan Journal of Chemistry (PJC) is a peer-reviewed scientific journal committed to publishing high-quality research across all branches of chemistry. The success of PJC hinges on the expertise and dedication of its reviewers, who play a vital role in maintaining the Journal’s standards of academic rigor and integrity. As a peer-reviewed journal, the Pakistan Journal of Chemistry follows the Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines by the Committee on Publication Ethics to ensure that peer reviews are fair, unbiased, and conducted in a timely manner. PJC extends our sincere gratitude to the scholars who dedicate their time and expertise to reviewing submitted articles. A reviewer-critical assessment helps authors refine their work while upholding the Journal’s reputation for excellence.

Role and Responsibilities of Reviewers:

  • Assess the originality, scientific validity, and relevance of submitted manuscripts to evaluate quality.
  • Suggestions should be clear, detailed, and constructive comments to help authors improve their work for Constructive improvement in the manuscript.
  • Handle manuscripts with professionalism and ensure confidentiality throughout the review process.
  • Identify potential ethical concerns, including plagiarism or conflicts of interest.

Why Become a Reviewer for PJC?

  • Contribute to the advancement of your field by shaping the quality of published research.
  • Gain insight into emerging trends and innovations in chemistry.
  • Enhance your professional credentials and network within the academic community.

The Pakistan Journal of Chemistry profoundly values the time and expertise of its reviewers. Your input is essential in upholding the Journal’s mission of promoting scientific discovery and innovation.

For more information about the review process or to express your interest in joining our reviewer pool, please visit www.chempublishers.com or email: editor_pjc@chempublishers.com.

Invitation to Join Our Reviewer Database

If you are interested in reviewing articles for the Pakistan Journal of Chemistry, please register by providing your contact details, digital identifier, institutional affiliation, a brief CV, and 5-6 keywords that align with your expertise. Once approved, you will receive a notification from the Managing Editor.

 Step-by-Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript

Invitation to Review

Upon receiving an invitation to review, you will be provided with the paper’s abstract to help you decide whether to accept the review request. Consider the following:

  • Does the Article align with your area of expertise? If not, please inform the editor promptly and feel free to suggest an alternative reviewer.
  • Can you complete the review within the 2-week timeframe? If this timeline is challenging, please communicate this to the editor.
  • Have you reviewed the same manuscript for another journal? This is not automatically a conflict of interest. However, if you have reviewed the manuscript previously, feel free to provide feedback on whether the manuscript has improved.
  • Are there any potential conflicts of interest? While these do not necessarily disqualify you from reviewing, it is crucial to disclose any conflicts to the editor before accepting the review.

The Pakistan Journal of Chemistry uses a formal review report format, which includes specific questions and a rating system for evaluating various aspects of the manuscript. If you agree to review a manuscript, please log in to your account to access the evaluation report, which will guide the structure of your review.

Step 1: Rapid Scan

Begin by skimming through the abstract to get an initial understanding of the manuscript’s objective, methodology, and conclusions. This quick overview helps you form a preliminary impression and decide whether the manuscript should be recommended for acceptance or rejection.

Step 2: Recognising Major Flaws

Before diving into a detailed reading, consider the following key points to identify any major issues early on, which can save time:

  • Validity of research questions, thorough methodology, and clear results
  • Accuracy and precision of the process data
  • Adequate use of control experiments
  • Consistency in sampling, especially in analytical studies
  • Insufficient or unclear data or sample size
  • Non-significant or contradictory data
  • Conclusions that contradict the results
  • Ambiguous presentation of data in figures, tables, or graphs
  • Overlooking methods or procedures known to significantly impact the research area
  • Signs of data fabrication or falsification

If any major issues are found, note the specific reasons and provide supporting evidence for the evaluation report.

Step 3: In-Depth Data Review

If the manuscript appears logical and worth reviewing, proceed with a detailed examination of each section, keeping the following questions in mind:

  • Originality/Novelty:
    • Is the research question original and well-defined?
    • Do the results contribute new knowledge?
  • Significance:
    • Are the results interpreted correctly?
    • Do they hold significant value?
    • Do the data fully support conclusions?
    • Are hypotheses clearly identified?
  • English Proficiency: Is the English language used appropriately and clearly throughout the manuscript?
  • Ethical Research Standards:
    • Was the study conducted following accepted ethical standards?
    • Is there any indication of misconduct, such as fraud, plagiarism, or other unethical practices? These should be reported immediately.
  • Overall Merit:
    • Does the manuscript provide a significant contribution to current knowledge?
    • Does it address an important, long-standing question with innovative experiments?
  • Scientific Reliability:
    • Is the study well-designed and technically sound?
    • Were the analyses conducted with the highest technical standards?
    • Is the data robust enough to support the conclusions?
    • Are methods, tools, software, and reagents described in sufficient detail to allow replication?
    • Are all ethical standards maintained, ensuring participant health and safety?
  • Quality of Presentation:
    • Is the manuscript well-written?
    • Are data and analyses presented clearly and accurately?
    • Did the Author adhere to the highest standards when presenting the results?
  • Reader Interest:
    • Are the conclusions relevant and engaging for the Journal’s readership?
    • Will the paper appeal to a broad audience, or is it of interest to a niche group? (Refer to the Aims and Scope of the Journal

Step 4: Thorough Second Reading

When conducting a second reading of the manuscript, consider the following aspects in addition to evaluating the clarity of language and content:

  • Title and Subject Relevance: Ensure the title accurately reflects the paper’s content.
  • Abstract Quality: The abstract should effectively summarize the key points of the paper.
  • Originality and Relevance: Assess the manuscript’s originality and its relevance in light of recent authoritative research. Ensure it references current literature.
  • Coherence of Results and Discussion: Check that the results and discussion sections are logically presented.
  • Search Engine Optimization (SEO): Evaluate whether the manuscript includes unique keywords that could enhance its visibility in search engines.
  • Manuscript Length: Consider whether the length of the manuscript is appropriate.
  • Content Quality: Review the manuscript for content, language, grammar, relevance, and logical flow.
  • References: Ensure references are relevant, recent, sufficient, and easily accessible.
  • Plagiarism: If you detect or suspect plagiarism, provide the source link and highlight the relevant sections in the manuscript.

Review Assessment

Reviewers are expected to:

  • Submit a detailed, constructive review report.
  • Rate the manuscript on originality, significance, presentation quality, scientific validity, reader interest, overall merit, and language proficiency.
  • Provide a comprehensive recommendation regarding the manuscript’s publication.

Overall Recommendation

Please choose one of the following recommendations:

  • Accept in Present Form: The manuscript is accepted as is, with no further changes required.
  • Accept after Minor Revisions: The manuscript is conditionally accepted pending minor revisions based on reviewer comments. Authors will have five days to make these changes.
  • Reconsider after Major Revisions: Acceptance is contingent on major revisions. Authors must respond to reviewer comments point-by-point or provide a rebuttal if some comments cannot be addressed. Typically, only one round of major revisions is permitted. Authors should resubmit the revised manuscript within ten days for further review.
  • Reject: The manuscript has significant flaws or lacks originality, resulting in rejection with no option for resubmission.

Please note that your recommendations are visible only to journal editors and not to the authors.

Timeliness and Review Ethics

We request that reviewers submit their reports promptly. If additional time is needed, please contact the editorial office for an extension.

  • Manuscripts submitted to the Pakistan Journal of Chemistry must adhere to high publication ethics standards.
  • Manuscripts should not contain results previously submitted or published elsewhere, even partially.
  • Manuscripts must be original and must not reuse text from other sources without proper citation.

Confidentiality and Anonymity

Reviewers must keep the manuscript’s content, including the abstract, confidential. If a reviewer needs to delegate the review to a student or colleague, they must notify the Editorial Office.

The Pakistan Journal of Chemistry employs single or double-blind peer review. Reviewers should avoid disclosing their identity to authors, either in comments or through metadata in documents submitted via Microsoft Word or PDF.

Note: Reviewers will have access to all review reports for the manuscripts they review via the online submission system after a final decision is made.

The Journal adheres to various standards and guidelines, including ICMJE (medical journals), CONSORT (trial reporting), TOP (data transparency and openness), PRISMA (systematic reviews and meta-analyses), and ARRIVE (reporting of in vivo experiments). Reviewers familiar with these guidelines should report any concerns regarding their implementation.

Comments should focus on the manuscript’s quality and not suggest whether the Article should be accepted. For additional guidance on peer review, please consult the following documents:

Information