SPJP Proceedings

Overview

Peer review is a formal, independent evaluation process where experts in a specific field assess scholarly manuscripts before publication. This system serves as a critical quality control mechanism, ensuring that published research meets high standards of scientific validity, originality, and ethical integrity. At SPJP PROCEEDINGS, which focuses on multidisciplinary health sciences including conferences, seminars, CME programs, webinars, and related academic activities, peer review not only validates methodological soundness and analytical accuracy but also enhances manuscript clarity and impact through constructive expert feedback. Reviewers play an indispensable role in maintaining academic credibility and advancing scientific knowledge globally.

Our Double-Blind Peer Review System

SPJP PROCEEDINGS operates under a double-blind peer review framework, designed to maximise objectivity and minimise bias. In this system, both authors and reviewers remain anonymous to each other throughout the evaluation process. This ensures that assessments are based solely on scholarly merit, unaffected by author reputation, institutional affiliation, or geographic location. The typical review period spans 2–3 weeks, though complex manuscripts may require additional time. This approach aligns with international publishing standards and promotes fair and unbiased evaluation.

Peer Review Workflow Overview

The peer review process follows a structured pathway from submission to editorial decision:

1. Initial Editorial Screening (2–3 days): The editorial team evaluates manuscripts for scope alignment, quality standards, and formatting compliance. Approximately 30% of submissions may be returned or declined at this stage.
2. Reviewer Assignment (5–7 days): Suitable reviewers are selected based on expertise, availability, and absence of conflicts of interest. Typically, 3–4 reviewers are invited to ensure at least two complete evaluations.
3. Peer Evaluation Phase (14–21 days): Reviewers conduct detailed assessments using standardised criteria and provide comprehensive reports.
4. Decision Formulation (3–5 days): Editors analyse reviewer feedback and determine the final decision.
5. Author Notification: Authors receive decisions along with reviewer comments and revision guidance.

The complete review cycle typically takes 4–6 weeks from submission to initial decision.

Reviewer Responsibilities and Ethical Guidelines

Pre-Review Considerations

Before accepting a review assignment, reviewers must ensure the manuscript falls within their area of expertise. They should disclose any conflicts of interest, including collaborations or institutional relationships. Reviewers must also confirm their availability to complete the review within the standard timeframe (usually 14 days), as a detailed review typically requires 4–6 hours of focused effort.

Review Execution Protocol

Reviewers should first read the manuscript fully to understand its objectives and methodology, followed by a detailed section-wise evaluation. Confidentiality must be strictly maintained at all times. Feedback should be constructive, specific, and aimed at improving the manuscript’s scientific quality and clarity.

Ethical Obligations

Reviewers must report any suspected misconduct such as plagiarism or data fabrication. They should verify ethical approvals (IRB/IACUC) and consent statements where applicable. Reviews must remain objective and free from personal criticism. Reviewer anonymity must be preserved, and any newly identified conflicts of interest should be immediately reported to the editor.

Comprehensive Manuscript Evaluation Framework

Scientific Quality Assessment

Reviewers should evaluate originality, methodological rigour, analytical accuracy, and whether conclusions are supported by data. The reproducibility of the study should also be assessed to ensure scientific reliability and contribution to multidisciplinary health sciences.

Structural and Presentation Evaluation

Technical and Ethical Compliance

Reviewers should verify the clarity of figures and tables, accuracy of statistical reporting, ethical approvals, and consistency of terminology. Supplementary materials should also be checked for relevance and proper linkage to the main manuscript.

Standardised Rating System

SPJP PROCEEDINGS follows a five-tier rating system:

Review Report Composition Guidelines

Required Report Components

The review report should include a summary of the study, major concerns, minor comments, confidential remarks (if any), and a clear recommendation (Accept, Revise, or Reject).

Decision Recommendation Framework

• Accept: Suitable for publication
• Minor Revisions: Small corrections required
• Major Revisions: Significant improvements needed
• Reject with Resubmission: Requires major restructuring
• Reject: Not suitable for publication

For reviewer assistance or queries, contact: editor@spjinternational.co

Last Update on: 11/12/2025