PIMR operates a formal double-blind peer review process. In double-blind review, the identities of both the authors and the reviewers are kept confidential from each other throughout the review. All manuscripts that pass the initial editorial screening are sent to a minimum of two independent expert reviewers.
On receipt of a manuscript, the editorial office carries out an initial check for compliance with the submission requirements — scope, format, word count, ethics statements, conflict of interest declarations, and reporting guideline checklists. Manuscripts that do not meet the basic requirements are returned to the authors without peer review.
Anti-plagiarism screening is carried out at this stage. Manuscripts with a text similarity index above 20% are returned to the authors for revision before the peer review process begins.
The Editor-in-Chief or the handling editor selects reviewers based on their expertise in the subject area of the manuscript. Reviewers must not have a conflict of interest with the authors, the institution, or the subject matter of the submission.
Authors may suggest potential reviewers at the time of submission; these suggestions may or may not be followed. Authors may also identify a limited number of reviewers they wish to exclude, with reasons, and these requests will be considered.
Reviewers are asked to evaluate the manuscript for scientific rigour, originality, methodological soundness, clarity of presentation, and compliance with reporting standards. Reviewers complete a structured review form and may provide additional narrative comments. Both the structured assessment and the written comments are shared with the authors.
If the two reviewers reach substantially different conclusions, the editor may seek the opinion of a third reviewer or may make a decision based on the available reports. For manuscripts with complex statistical methods or specialist content, a statistical or subject-matter expert may be consulted in addition to the primary reviewers.
After considering the reviewer reports, the handling editor will communicate one of the following decisions to the corresponding author:
Authors invited to revise their manuscript must submit a point-by-point response to all reviewer and editor comments as a separate document. The response should explain clearly what changes were made and, where a reviewer's suggestion was not followed, why not.
The revised manuscript must not contain tracked changes; revisions should be highlighted in a different font colour.
PIMR aims to communicate an initial editorial decision within four to six weeks of submission. Authors of revised manuscripts will generally receive a decision within three to four weeks of resubmission. These timelines are indicative and may vary depending on the availability of reviewers.
All manuscripts under review are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share the manuscript with colleagues, discuss its content outside the review process, or use any information from it for their own research before the paper is published. These obligations continue after the review process is completed.
For detailed reviewer responsibilities, see the Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.