Peer Review Process

Step 1. Editor screening
An editor will do an initial screening of the manuscript. The journal editor will determine whether it is appropriate for the journal and whether there are any fundamental faults at this level.

The paper will be rejected without external review if the editor believes it contains major flaws or is inappropriate to the journal's scope and goals. The authors will be notified.

The paper is sent out for review to external reviewers if it passes the editor's initial screening.

Step 2. Peer review
The paper will now be sent to reviewers after passing the editor's screening. Typically, two to three reviewers are recruited to evaluate the work, however, this number varies by field of study. Experts in the relevant field should serve as reviewers. Each reviewer will read the manuscript and provide feedback in the form supplied. The significance of the study, the study design, the findings presentation, the clarity of the language, and other factors will be considered by the reviewers. The reviewers will also provide a publication recommendation to the journal editor.

The editor will decide whether the manuscript will be accepted, rejected, or invited to rewrite and resubmit based on the feedback and recommendations of the reviewers. The writers will receive the decision form from the editor. It is highly uncommon for a document to be accepted in its current state. The authors proceed to the third step of the procedure if they are invited to revise and resubmit their manuscript.

Step 3. Revising and resubmitting
Although the editors agree the article provides valuable information, they believe that some issues or concerns should be addressed. The authors must carefully study and analyze the opinions of reviewers. These suggestions should be incorporated into the rewrite.

The writers must also respond to each comment on a point-by-point basis, stating how the modification was made or providing appropriate explanations politely if certain revisions are not possible. The authors must adhere to the editor's instructions on how to demonstrate revision (e.g., highlighting the changes, use of Microsoft Word Track Change).

The authors resubmit the updated work to the journal after it has been revised. For the second round, the revisions will be reviewed by the editor alone or by both the editor and the reviewers.

The authors can generally gain a final decision after that. If the editor and reviewers agree that the revision adequately addresses their previous concerns and that the article has improved as a result of the revision, the paper will proceed to the final step.

Step 4. Acceptance
The paper will be submitted to the Editorial Board for approval when it has been accepted and polished. As a condition of publishing, the writers will be asked to complete specific documents. After copyediting, the manuscript will be processed for layout and production.

Criteria for Acceptance and Rejection.

A manuscript is accepted when it is (1) endorsed for publication by the Editorial Consultant (2) the instructions of the reviewers are substantially complied; (3) the manuscript passed the plagiarism detection test with a score of at least 90 for originality; and, (4) the manuscript obtained a score of 90 percent for grammarly software; otherwise, the manuscript is rejected. The reviewer's evaluations include an explicit recommendation of what to do with the manuscript, chosen from options provided by the journal.

Most recommendations are along the following lines:

  • Unconditional acceptance
  • Acceptance with revision based on the reviewer's recommendations
  • Rejection with an invitation to resubmit after major adjustments based on the advice of the reviewers and editorial board
  • Complete rejection

In situations where the reviewers disagree substantially about the quality of work, there are a number of strategies for reaching a decision. When the editor receives both extremely favorable and extremely negative feedback on the same manuscript, the board will request one or more extra reviews to break the tie. In the event of a tie, the board may invite writers to respond to a reviewer's criticisms and allow a strong response to break the tie. The board may request a response from the reviewer who made the original critique if the editor does not feel secure in judging the persuasiveness of a rebuttal. In rare instances, the board will convey communications back and forth between an author and a reviewer, allowing them to debate on a point. However, even in such a case, the board does not allow reviewer to confer with each other. The goal of the process is explicitly not to reach a consensus or to convince anyone to change his/her opinions.


The JPAIR Multidisciplinary Research welcomes the submission of comments on previous articles. Comments on previously published articles will usually be assessed by two reviewers: an author of the original article (to aid the editor in determining whether the provided remark accurately represents the accuracy of the preceding article) and an independent reviewer. If a comment is accepted for publication, the author will be given the opportunity to respond. All other editorial requirements, as enumerated above, apply to proposed comments—technology-based Quality Assurance English Writing Readability. Readability tests are designed to indicate comprehension difficulty when reading a passage of contemporary academic English. To guide teachers and researchers in the proper selection of articles that suit the comprehension level of users, contributors are advised to use the Flesch Kincaid readability test, particularly the Flesch Reading Ease test. The interpretation of the score is as follows:

Score Notes
90.0 – 100.00 Easily understandable by an average 11-year-old student
60.0 – 70.0 Easily understandable by 13 to 15-year-old students
0.0 – 30.0 Best understood by university graduates

Gunning Fog Index. Developed by Robert Gunning, an American Businessman, in 1952, Gunning Fog Index measures the readability of English writing. The index estimates the years of formal education required to understand the text on a first reading. A fog index of 12 requires a reading level of a US high school senior (around 18 years old) or third-year college/university in the Philippines.

Plagiarism Detection. Contributors are advised to use software for plagiarism detection to increase the manuscript’s chances of acceptance. The editorial office uses licensed software to screen research articles of plagiarism. The standard set is 95 percent original to pass the plagiarism detection test. Appropriateness of Citation Format. Contributors are advised to use the citation format prescribed by the Harvard System.

Word Count, Spelling, and Grammar Checks. Contributors are encouraged to perform word count for the abstract (200) and the full text (about 4000 to 6000). Spelling and grammar checks should be performed prior to submission. The standard set is 90 percent to pass the Grammarly Software.

Final Evaluation: After favorable opinions of referees, the editorial board is made the final evaluation. They will be given an endorsement form together with their comments and suggestions to be applied to each manuscript. The articles accepted for publication by the editorial are placed in an issue sequence.

Time of Peer Review Process: The journal aims to complete the all peer review process within 15 weeks (effective from 2022). This time, however, may vary depending on the amount of revision work that needs to be completed before the manuscript is acceptable.