For sustained confidentiality during and after the review, PLSJ will have papers reviewed anonymously. As a result, we will not reveal the identity of our reviewers, in general, and the readers of specific papers, in particular, to authors.
Papers are sent out for peer-review if and when they are considered suitable for peer-review after an in-house assessment. In consultation with Editorial and Advisory Boards, then, a reviewer is selected and invited to read a paper and evaluate it.
If a reviewer accepts the invitation to assess a paper, she/he is bound by professional norms and PLSJ's Ethics of Publication, a brief description of which follows:
- Any papers received for review must be treated as confidential documents. They must not be shown to or discussed with others, unless authorized by the Editor-in-Chief.
- A reviewer who feels unqualified to review a paper or knows that its timely review will be impossible should decline the invitation to read the paper and notify the Editor-in-Chief, so that alternative reviewers can be contacted.
- Reviewers will not consider evaluating papers in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the submission.
- Reviews should be conducted objectively. Personal criticism of the author will by no means be accepted.
- Reviewers should express their views clearly with appropriate supporting arguments.
- Reviewers will identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the author(s). They should also call to the Editor-in-Chief’s attention any substantial similarity or overlap between the paper under consideration and any other published material of which they have personal knowledge. Such cases should be accompanied by the relevant citation.