Review Policy

Every proposal submitted for publication is read at least by an editor, for an initial review. If the paper agrees with editorial policies and with a minimum quality level, is sent to paper expert  reviewer. The reviewer won’t know the author’s identity, as any identifying information will be stripped from the document before review. the Reviewer’ comments to the editors are confidential and before passing on to the author will made anonymous. Based on the reviewers’ comments, the Editorial Board makes a final decision on the acceptability of the manuscript, and communicates to the authors the decision, along with referees’ reports. Whether significant revisions are proposed, acceptance is dependent on whether the author can deal with those satisfactorily All submitted papers are subject to strict Single -blind peer review process, by one international or one national reviewer. That are experts in the area of the particular Subject paper. The peer review process can take anywhere between 2 weeks to 3 weeks. The aim of the review process is to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article, in terms of originality, interest, up-to-dates, coherence, and balanced argumentation. The factors that are chiefly taken into account in review are as follows:

  • Relevance: Is this paper relevant for the topics of this journal?
  • Soundness: Is this paper technically sound and complete?
  • Are the claims supported by experimental/theoretical results?
  • Significance: Is the paper interesting for other researchers?
  • Originality: Are the results/ideas novel and previously unknown?
  • Readability: Is the paper well-organized and easy to understand?
  • Grammar: Is the paper written in correct grammar English ?

The main factors taken into account are significance and originality.

After the peer review of a manuscript, the corresponding author will receive an email in which scholar will be informed of the status of the manuscript.

The possible decisions include

  • acceptance with major or minor revisions
  • or rejection (Articles that are often rejected include those that are poorly written or organized or are written in poor Grammar

In most cases, PMDJAS reviewers recommend that authors revise their manuscripts and send their revisions for further process. In such cases, authors may want to accept some of the comments and suggestions that have been made by the reviewers, and at the same time refute some others. It is strongly recommended that authors send in a ‘rebuttal’ note in which they respond to all of the comments and suggestions made by the reviewers in an item-by-item fashion. They should clearly show which comments and suggestions they accept, and which comments and suggestions they refute. Where a comment or suggestion is refuted, the author is expected to provide the reason why. However, if authors are encouraged to revise and resubmit a submission,

  • there is no guarantee that the revised submission will be accepted.
  • Rejected articles will not be re-reviewed.
  • Articles may be rejected without review if the Editor-in-Chief considers the article obviously not suitable for publication.

PMDJAS The following guidelines has been taken form Higher Education Commission of Pakistan available  on the official website of HEC (HEC Approved Ethical Guidelines).

Open Access

All published Articles and publication are open Access and it follows the terms outlined by the Creative Commons License.  4.0 International -CC-BY-NC. 4.0. 

COPYRIGHT STATEMENT

Please Download Copyright statement and send it to editor@pmdjas.com or editor.pmdjas@gmail.com

The paper acceptance is constrained by such legal requirements as shall then be in force regarding libel, copyright infringement and plagiarism. No research can be included in more than one publication.