Peer Review Process
-
Initial Evaluation
The Editor in Chief (EIC) evaluates the submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts will be rejected if they have scientific defects or are outside the objectives and scope of the journal. Manuscripts that meet the criteria will be reviewed with expertise according to the subject of the manuscript.
-
Peer Review Type
Progressive Physics Journal (PPJ) applies a “double blind” review, where the reviewers and authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
-
Selection of Reviewers
A system of "personal classifications" is used to match reviewers to manuscripts. Authors determine the relevant classification when they submit manuscripts through the Editorial Manager.
-
Reviewers’ Report
Checks from the reviewers include the authenticity of the manuscript, methodological quality, following appropriate ethical guidelines, having results presented clearly and supporting conclusions, and the manuscript referring correctly to previous research. Reviewers do not correct, edit and correct the language of the manuscript.
-
Review Process Timeframe
After the manuscript has passed the initial evaluation process, the appropriate reviewers have been identified and will receive an invitation and be given one week to respond. Reviewers who accept the invitation will complete the review within 28 days. However, if the reviewer does not submit comments by the deadline, he can be replaced with a backup reviewer to keep the review process smooth. If the reports from the reviewers conflict with one another or there is an unreasonable delay, an additional expert opinion will be sought. There are several decisions that may be made: accept/reject the manuscript directly, request minor/major revisions, and accept/reject post-revision. Reviewers and/or editors may request more than one revision of the manuscript. This decision will be sent to the author along with recommendations and comments from the reviewers.
The submission guide for authors can be downloaded in the link below:
