Call For Reviewers

Academicians and Practitioners are invited to become reviewer in all the journals published by PRJP. Please send your request to managing editor along with your latest resume mentioning area of specialization and research along with a recent photograph via e-mail to with subject line REQUEST TO BECOME A REVIEWER (Name of Journal).

The procedure of selection of any article or research paper for publication in every journal of ‘Pristine Research Journal Publications’ necessitate that manuscript will simply be accepted when it has been reviewed by the managing/chief editor and at least two reviewers of particular journal. The verdict of the managing/chief editor to publish the manuscript is principally influenced by the judgment of reviewers, who are experts of that specific field. The name of author(s) and identification are removed before sending manuscript to a reviewer in order to make best use of neutrality and to ensure that a manuscript is refereed completely on the strength of its rich contents and contributing role to the respective field.
Review Policy

The Managing Editor of PRJP has exclusive right to appoint Chief Editor, Associate Editors and Members of Editorial Review Board. The Managing Editor of PRJP may reappoint or replace them any time.

The Chief Editor is responsible for the contents of respective journal of PRJP and has final authority to the acceptance of all manuscripts. However, the Chief Editor must go after the procedure for suitability and be receptive to the recommendations of the Associate Editors and Reviewers. In all cases where the Chief Editor has a disagreement connected with a certain submission, a Guest Editor will be assigned to handle that manuscript.

One Associate Editor is assigned to a paper. He or she will assist the Managing/Chief Editor in summarizing reviewer remarks to give guidance to the author(s) with respect to revisions. If required, a guest Associate Editor will also be appointed to make available particular proficiency for a paper or to stay away from a clash of interest.

Reviewer comes from Editorial Review Board, who is selected by the Managing/Chief Editor according to their area of specialization. However, ad hoc reviewers who are not members of the Editorial Board may also be invited to review articles.

All manuscripts will go through a double-blind review process. Only the Managing/Chief Editor knows the identity of the author and the reviewers.

The Managing/Chief Editor holds the ultimate authority for the acceptance or refusal of any article.
Review Process

The assistant to the Chief Editor makes sure the submitted manuscript for adherence to the guidelines of PRJP and forwards it to the Chief Editor.

The Chief Editor decides desk rejects (normally 20%) and sends this decision to the authors. The Chief Editor selects at least two reviewers from Editorial Review Board for other manuscripts.

The reviewers are contacted and requested for the assessment the manuscript within two weeks. Additional reviewers are requested in order to accomplish the goal of minimum two completed reviews.

The completed reviews and manuscript are forwarded to the Chief Editor, who goes through the main points of the reviews, evaluates the paper and sends final decision derived from the input to the authors with necessary direction.

Normal Decisions

Desk Reject: Manuscripts with approach or content which is inappropriate to the scope of particular journal published by PRJP. All such manuscripts are generally not sent for review.

Reject: The paper is not acceptable, and identical versions are expected unacceptable in all journals of PRJP.

Uncertain Revision: Even though the manuscript has prospective and large changes or corrections are required prior to probable publication. The change or correction may require new statistics, analysis, or premise. Because this process is continuously indecisive, the revision is uncertain.

Revision: The manuscript is on the point of publication and has chance of being published finally.

Conditional Acceptance: The manuscript is ready for publication after some modifications. Generally, these modifications are reviewed only by the Chief Editor, and manuscript will not be sent back to the reviewers.

Unconditional Acceptance: The manuscript is considered accepted, and the assistant to the Chief Editor will work with the author(s) so that the publication process may start.

Reviewer Guidelines
Manuscripts submitted for publication in any journal of PRJP are refereed on the strength of their underlying role to the development of the science and/or practice of related field. For a manuscript to be published in any journal of PRJP, it must meet three minimum standards:

It must make a meaningful contribution to knowledge in related field and make available new insights, new thoughts, and/or new pragmatic domino effect.

It must be based on appropriate evidence, whether literature review, theory, or experimental research. It is anticipated that manuscript submitted for possible publication in any journal of PRJP will be additional theory supported, more literature supported, and thoroughly empirical.

It must be of merit to academicians and/or practitioners. Explicitly, the information must be considered as original, perceptive and imperative by the academicians and/or practitioners who form the readership of PRJP.

Guidelines for Written Comments

Please prepare detailed evaluative comments for the author(s).

Keep in mind that PRJP will send these evaluative remarks to the author(s) as received.

It is very important to be gracious while giving remarks supporting your approval, even when you must be serious to the script.

Attempt to be as extensive, definite, and helpful as possible in your remarks to the author(s).

Your remarks should be set to help the author(s) in moving forward the manuscript, even if you evaluate that the manuscript does not worth publication in particular journal of PRJP.
Recognize the role and main strong points of the manuscript. Is this manuscript appropriate for particular journal of PRJP? What is the additional input of manuscript to current theory and practice of subject area? What are the most important strong points of the manuscript? If, in your appraisal, the manuscript does not put together any contribution or does not have any effectiveness, a politely worded opening paragraph summarizing the character of the manuscript would be appropriate.

The following are some questions pertaining to main weaknesses of the manuscript you should try to address:

  1. Does the manuscript put forward adequate information to make an appraisal? If not, what information is required? Be precise.
  2. Does the manuscript have inaccuracies? If so, are they correctable? How can these be corrected? Would exclusion of problematical sections be a way out? If correction is not possible, please state, why?
  3. Do the author(s) acquire their stated objectives? If not, what do they still need to do?
  4. What are the principal changes that should be accomplished and/or main problems that should be focused in a revision?

Identify other changes that would possibly support the manuscript and/or minor issues that should be attended in a revision.While discussing minor issues; it is generally useful to point out the place in the manuscript (page and paragraph) where the change should be made.

Some issues you may take into consideration concerning readability:

  1. The length to contribution ratio of manuscript is appropriate or not. A “desirable” length is 10-15 pages of content, excluding references, tables, and figures.
  2. Are there some parts of the manuscript which can be removed or reduced? Are there some sections of the manuscript that might be moved to a technical appendix?
  3. Will the manuscript be appealing and useful to both academicians and practitioners? If not, how can it be developed? Do you see decision-making implications that the author(s) have overlooked or failed to treat in reasonable insight?

About Abstract and Title: Whether abstract is a precise and functional outline of the content of the manuscript and title is suitable to the content of the manuscript. Give proper remarks and suggestions in this regard.

You are welcome to write a separate note to the Chief Editor if you think it is required to alert the Chief Editor for issues that would be inappropriate to include in the remarks to the Author(s).

Review Report Submission

Reviewers are requested to send their report within two weeks via e-mail to


An online publication of Pristine Research Journal Publications

© 2016, Pristine Research Journal Publications, All Rights Reserved