Our Commitment to Peer Review
At Potroput (পত্রপুট), we are committed to maintaining the highest standards of peer review. Our double-blind peer review process ensures that all manuscripts are evaluated fairly, objectively, and rigorously by experts in the field. We follow the guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) to ensure integrity and transparency throughout the review process.
Peer Review Process
Initial Submission
Author submits manuscript through the online submission system. The editorial office checks for completeness and compliance with journal guidelines.
Editorial Screening
Editor-in-Chief or Associate Editor performs initial screening to assess the manuscript's fit with the journal's scope and overall quality. Manuscripts that do not meet criteria may be desk-rejected.
Reviewer Selection
At least 2-3 expert reviewers are selected based on their expertise and availability. Reviewers are chosen to ensure no conflicts of interest.
Peer Review
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript for scientific rigor, methodology, originality, clarity, and significance. They provide constructive feedback and recommendations.
Editorial Decision
Based on reviewer comments, the Editor makes a decision: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Reject. Authors are notified with detailed feedback.
Revision & Final Decision
Authors revise the manuscript addressing reviewer comments. Revised manuscripts undergo further review before final acceptance or rejection.
Types of Peer Review
Double-Blind Review
Both the author(s) and reviewer(s) are anonymous. This ensures unbiased evaluation based solely on the quality of the research.
- Author identity hidden
- Reviewer identity hidden
- Unbiased evaluation
- Focus on research quality
Single-Blind Review
Reviewers know the identity of the authors, but authors do not know the identity of the reviewers.
- Reviewers know authors
- Authors unknown to reviewers
- Traditional model
- Used in special cases
Open Review
Both authors and reviewers are known to each other. This promotes transparency and accountability.
- Author identity known
- Reviewer identity known
- Transparent process
- Promotes accountability
Reviewer Guidelines
Confidentiality
Treat all manuscripts as confidential. Do not share or discuss with others.
Objectivity
Provide unbiased evaluation. Support criticisms with evidence.
Timeliness
Respond promptly and complete reviews within the specified timeframe.
Conflict of Interest
Declare any conflicts of interest. Recuse if necessary.
Competence
Review only in areas of expertise. Seek guidance if uncertain.
Integrity
Identify ethical concerns. Report suspected misconduct.
Constructive Feedback
Provide clear, constructive, and respectful feedback.
Professional Standards
Maintain professional standards and respect confidentiality.
Ethical Considerations
Plagiarism Check
All manuscripts are screened for plagiarism using industry-standard software.
Confidentiality
Strict confidentiality is maintained throughout the review process.
Conflict of Interest
All editors and reviewers must declare potential conflicts of interest.
Research Integrity
All research must adhere to ethical standards and guidelines.