For Reviewers

The Preclinical Studies Journal (PCS) welcomes qualified researchers and scholars to join its international panel of peer reviewers. Peer review is fundamental to maintaining the scientific quality, integrity, and credibility of the journal. Reviewers provide independent, objective, and constructive evaluations that assist the Editorial Board in making informed publication decisions while helping authors improve their manuscripts.

Before accepting a review invitation, reviewers are encouraged to read the Peer Review Process, Journal Policies, and Publication Ethics pages to become familiar with the journal's editorial procedures and ethical standards.

Why Review for PCS

Serving as a reviewer provides an opportunity to contribute to the advancement of preclinical and biomedical sciences while supporting the integrity of scholarly publishing.

Reviewers benefit by:

  • Contributing to the publication of high-quality scientific research.
  • Supporting researchers through constructive scientific feedback.
  • Enhancing their academic and professional service record.
  • Receiving an official Reviewer Certificate after successfully completing at least three high-quality peer reviews.
  • Receiving annual acknowledgement of reviewer contributions, where applicable.
  • Building their academic reputation through professional peer-review activities.

Reviewer Eligibility

PCS welcomes applications from qualified researchers whose expertise aligns with the journal's aims and scope.

Prospective reviewers should:

  • Hold a doctoral degree (PhD, MD, DVM, or an equivalent qualification).
  • Have published research in peer-reviewed journals.
  • Demonstrate expertise within the journal's subject areas.
  • Maintain an active research profile.
  • Be committed to objective, ethical, confidential, and timely peer review.

Previous peer-review experience is desirable but not mandatory.

How to Become a Reviewer

Researchers interested in serving as reviewers should register through the PCS Online Journal System (OJS).

Registration Steps

  1. Create an account in the journal's online submission system.
  2. Complete your reviewer profile.
  3. Select the Reviewer role.
  4. Specify your reviewing interests using appropriate keywords.
  5. Keep your institutional affiliation, ORCID (where available), contact details, and research interests up to date.

Reviewer invitations are issued according to subject expertise, publication record, reviewer availability, and previous reviewing performance where applicable.

Reviewer Selection

Reviewers are selected by the Editorial Board based on:

  • Expertise relevant to the submitted manuscript.
  • Publication record and research experience.
  • Previous peer-review performance, where available.
  • Availability to complete the review within the requested timeframe.
  • Absence of actual or potential conflicts of interest.

Review invitations should be accepted only when reviewers possess the appropriate expertise and sufficient time to complete a thorough evaluation.

Reviewer Responsibilities

Reviewers are expected to provide fair, objective, confidential, timely, and evidence-based evaluations that support editorial decision-making and help authors improve the scientific quality of their manuscripts in alignment with our Author Guidelines and Manuscript Preparation criteria.

When preparing a review, reviewers should:

  • Assess the originality, novelty, and scientific significance of the manuscript.
  • Evaluate the appropriateness of the study design, methodology, statistical analyses, and overall scientific rigor.
  • Assess the quality, accuracy, and interpretation of the results.
  • Determine whether the conclusions are supported by the presented data.
  • Evaluate the clarity, organization, language, tables, and figures.
  • Assess whether the references are relevant, current, accurate, and appropriately cited.
  • Identify possible ethical concerns, including plagiarism, duplicate publication, image manipulation, data fabrication, or other forms of research misconduct where suspected.
  • Distinguish clearly between major and minor issues.
  • Support criticisms with specific comments and scientific evidence whenever appropriate.
  • Provide constructive and practical recommendations that help authors improve their manuscript.
  • Maintain a respectful, objective, and professional tone throughout the review.
  • Evaluate the scientific quality of the manuscript rather than the authors.
  • Use confidential comments to the Editor whenever necessary.
  • Submit the completed review within the requested review period.

Manuscript Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts using the following criteria.

Criterion Reviewer Should Evaluate
Originality Novelty, innovation, and contribution to existing knowledge.
Scientific Quality Study design, methodology, experimental procedures, statistical analyses, and reproducibility.
Relevance Suitability for the aims and scope detailed in About the Journal.
Results and Conclusions Whether the conclusions are supported by the presented data.
Presentation Organization, clarity, language quality, tables, and figures outlined in Manuscript Preparation.
References Accuracy, relevance, completeness, and citation of current literature.
Ethics Ethical approval, research integrity, and compliance with applicable ethical standards in accordance with Journal Policies.

Confidentiality

All manuscripts received for peer review are confidential documents.

Reviewers must:

  • Treat all manuscript content as strictly confidential.
  • Not share, distribute, or discuss manuscripts without prior editorial permission.
  • Not contact authors directly regarding the manuscript.
  • Not use unpublished information for personal, academic, or commercial advantage.
  • Securely delete or destroy manuscript files after completing the review.

PCS operates a double-blind peer-review system in which the identities of authors and reviewers remain confidential throughout the editorial process.

Artificial Intelligence and Confidentiality

Reviewers must preserve the confidentiality of submitted manuscripts at all times.

Unless explicitly authorized by the Editorial Office, reviewers must not upload manuscripts, figures, datasets, reviewer reports, or any confidential manuscript content to generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools or external services that may retain, process, or use submitted material.

Any AI-assisted writing or language support must not compromise manuscript confidentiality or replace the reviewer's independent scientific judgment.

Conflict of Interest

Reviewers must decline a review invitation if any actual, potential, or perceived conflict of interest could influence the objectivity of their evaluation.

Examples include:

  • Employment at the same institution.
  • Recent collaboration with one or more authors.
  • Supervisor–student or close professional relationships.
  • Financial interests related to the research.
  • Personal relationships.
  • Directly competing research.

Potential conflicts should be disclosed promptly to the Editorial Office.

Reviewer Recommendations

After completing the review, reviewers are normally asked to recommend one of the following editorial decisions:

  • Accept.
  • Minor Revision.
  • Major Revision.
  • Reject.

Reviewer recommendations are advisory and do not constitute the final publication decision. The final decision rests with the Editor-in-Chief or the assigned handling editor.

Peer Review Timeline

PCS aims to complete peer review efficiently while maintaining rigorous scientific standards.

Stage Typical Time
Editorial Screening Approximately 1 week
External Peer Review Approximately 4–6 weeks
Editorial Decision Approximately 1 week
Online Publication After Acceptance Approximately 1 week

Actual processing times may vary depending on reviewer availability, manuscript complexity, and the extent of revisions required.

Reviewer Recognition

PCS recognizes the valuable contribution of reviewers in maintaining the scientific quality of the journal.

Reviewer recognition may include:

  • Official Reviewer Certificates.
  • Annual acknowledgement of reviewer contributions, where applicable.
  • Opportunities for continued service within the journal's reviewer community.
  • Consideration for future appointment to the Editorial Board based on expertise and reviewing performance.

Ethical Standards and Complaints

PCS follows the principles and recommendations of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) throughout the peer-review process.

Reviewers are expected to uphold the highest standards of integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, and professionalism. Concerns regarding reviewer conduct, ethical issues, appeals, or complaints are handled confidentially and fairly by the Editorial Board in accordance with the Journal Policies.

Contact

Questions regarding reviewer registration, reviewer invitations, or the peer-review process may be directed to the PCS Editorial Office.

Email: pcs.ais@aieg.us