Peer Review Policy
PXJ follows a rigorous and thoughtful review process committed to honoring each submission received for the potential contributions it can make to expanding the evidence base on the patient experience and the human experience in healthcare.
Editors rapidly review each new submission to gauge its worthiness for double-blind peer review. Every submission sent out for peer review is blinded of authorship identifiers and targets a minimum of two anonymous reviews. Once all reviews have been received by the editors, corresponding authors are given editorial decisions along with the anonymous reviewer feedback. Most manuscripts require revisions prior to acceptance. If invited to revise and resubmit a manuscript, authors are responsible for completing the requested revisions in a timely manner, as stipulated by the decision letter.
Final decisions on submissions are ultimately the responsibility of the PXJ editorial team, which makes determinations based on reviewer recommendations, author responses and revisions, and the paper’s novelty, clarity and relevance to the journal’s aims and scope. Editorial decisions are not affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race or religion of the authors. Submissions by members of the editorial board are processed by the editorial and production team to ensure blinded peer reviewers are used and unbiased reviews obtained. Copyright infringement and plagiarism are not tolerated.
During the review process, editors do not disclose any information about the submission to anyone other than the corresponding author, reviewers, potential reviewers and other editorial advisers. Any manuscripts received for review will be treated as confidential documents. Editors strive to ensure that peer review is fair, unbiased and timely. The journal encourages reviewers to comment on ethical questions and possible misconduct raised by submissions (e.g., unethical research design, insufficient detail on patient consent or protection of research subjects [including animals], or inappropriate data manipulation) and to be alert to redundant publication and plagiarism.
Reviews are conducted objectively and include supporting arguments for observations so authors can use them to improve the paper. Reviewers should identify relevant published work that has not been cited by the authors. The journal appreciates the contribution of our volunteer reviewers and ceases to use reviewers who consistently produce discourteous, poor quality or late reviews.
You can find more about PXJ’s policies on Conflict of Interest, Human Research and more on our Publication Policies page..