Ethical Guidelines for the Reviewers

The Pakistan Journal of Linguistics (PJL) recognizes that peer review is a cornerstone of scholarly publishing. Reviewers play a critical role in ensuring the quality, integrity, and credibility of published research. The following ethical guidelines are established in line with the Higher Education Commission (HEC), Pakistan standards to guide reviewers in performing their duties responsibly and professionally.

Section Guidelines
1. Suitability and Promptness • Reviewers should immediately inform the Editor if they lack the expertise to evaluate a manuscript.
• Reviews must be completed within the stipulated time.
• Reviewers should notify the Editor promptly in case of unavoidable delays and propose a revised deadline.
• Reviewers must not delay the process unnecessarily or request irrelevant data from authors or editors.
2. Standards of Objectivity • Reviews should be conducted objectively, based on scholarly merit and scientific rigor.
• Comments and judgments must be clear, constructive, and evidence-based.
• Personal criticism of the author(s) is inappropriate.
• Decisions should be based solely on the quality of the research, free from personal, financial, or ideological bias.
3. Disclosure and Conflict of Interest • Reviewers must not use unpublished data or ideas from the manuscript for personal benefit.
• All manuscripts are confidential and must not be shared or used without permission.
• Reviewers should declare any potential conflicts of interest (personal, financial, professional, political, or religious).
• If a reviewer feels unable to remain objective due to a conflict, they should decline the review and inform the Editor.
4. Confidentiality • Manuscripts under review must be treated as confidential documents.
• Reviewers should not discuss or share manuscript content with others without the Editor’s consent.
• No part of the manuscript should be disclosed or cited before publication.
5. Ethical Considerations • If plagiarism or duplication is suspected, the reviewer must inform the Editor and provide supporting evidence.
• Suspected falsification or fabrication of data should be reported.
• Ethical violations in human or animal research (e.g., mistreatment, exploitation) must be highlighted.
• Reviewers should notify the Editor of any failure to acknowledge previous relevant work.
6. Originality Assessment • Assess whether the research contributes new knowledge or insights.
• Evaluate the alignment of research questions and hypotheses with the study objectives.
• Give preference to manuscripts that demonstrate originality and innovation.
7. Structure and Quality of Presentation • Ensure the manuscript follows the journal’s formatting and structural guidelines.
• Identify linguistic or grammatical issues that may hinder readability, especially if the author’s first language is not English.
• Check the clarity and accuracy of tables, figures, and illustrations, ensuring consistency between results and data presented.
• Critically assess the methodology, data analysis, and coherence between findings and conclusions.
• Note whether the manuscript adheres to the journal’s submission requirements and is free of typographical errors.
8. Review Report • Reviewers should record all observations clearly in the Comments section of the review form.
• A concise summary of the evaluation should be provided at the beginning of the report.
• Deficiencies and areas for improvement must be specified with supporting justification.
• The reviewer’s recommendation must be clearly stated as one of the following: Accept without Revision, Accept with Revision, or Reject.
• If requested by the Editor, reviewers should confirm that revisions have been adequately addressed.
• The final decision on acceptance or rejection rests solely with the Editor, though reviewer input is crucial to the process.

Note

These guidelines are designed to uphold ethical standards in the peer review process and to ensure consistency, fairness, and transparency in editorial decisions.