Peer-Reviewed Process
Article Review Process
OJPR uses a double-blind review in which both the reviewer and author identities are concealed from the reviewers, and vice versa, throughout the review process.
To facilitate this, authors need to ensure that their manuscripts are prepared in a way that does not give away their identity. To help with this preparation please ensure the following when submitting to the journal:
1. Submit the Title Page containing the Authors details and Blinded Manuscript with no author details as 2 separate files.
2. After a paper is submitted to the OJPR, a journal editor screens the manuscript and generate a plagiarism report using Turnitin. If manuscript falls in the journal scope and plagiarism is below 10% the handling editor sends invitations to individuals he or she believes would be appropriate reviewers. If a paper does not pass through the stage, the handling editor rejects the paper on a desk.
3. Potential reviewers consider the invitation against their own expertise, conflicts of interest and availability. They then accept or decline. If possible, when declining, they might also suggest alternative reviewers. The first read is used to form an initial impression of the work. If major problems are found at this stage, the reviewer may feel comfortable rejecting the paper without further work. Otherwise, they will read the paper several more times, taking notes so as to build a detailed point-by-point review. The review is then submitted to the journal, with a recommendation to accept or reject it – or else with a request for revision (usually flagged as either major or minor) before it is reconsidered.
4. Finally, OJPR editors or the editorial board consider the peer reviewers’ reports and make the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript for publication.
5. If accepted, the paper is sent to production. If the article is rejected or sent back for either major or minor revision, the handling editor includes constructive comments from the reviewers to help the author improve the article. At this point, reviewers should also be sent an email or letter letting them know the outcome of their review.