Publish
For Authors
Instructions for Authors
Forms
Artificial Intelligence Positioning
For Reviewers
For Authors
Submission Checklist
Before submitting your work, check Instructions for Authors and Journal Policies.
As part of the submission process, authors are required to check off their submission's compliance with all of the following items, and submissions may be returned to authors that do not adhere to these guidelines.
- The contribution is original and unpublished and is not under review or for publication in another journal.
- The files for submission are in Microsoft Word format.
- The text follows the style standards and bibliographic requirements described in Instructions for Authors
- Do not forget to download and submit: Authors Contributorship (click here); Conflict of Interest ICMJE Disclosure (click here)
Forms
Conflict of Interests statement
Authors' contribution statement
Artificial Intelligence Positioning
The recommendations stipulated by the Committee on Publication Ethics regarding the use of artificial intelligence in scientific research writing, will be strictly followed.
Authors:
- At the time of submission, authors must declare whether artificial intelligence (AI)– assisted technologies (such as Large Language Models [LLMs], chatbots, or image creators) in the production of submitted work. Authors who use such technology should describe, in both the cover letter and the submitted work, how they used it.
- Chatbots (such as ChatGPT) should not be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are required for authorship. Therefore, humans are responsible for any submitted material that included the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should carefully review and edit the result because AI can generate authoritative-sounding output that can be incorrect, incomplete, or biased.
- Authors should not list AI and AI assisted technologies as an author or co-author, nor cite AI as an author. Authors should be able to assert that there is no plagiarism in their paper, including in text and images produced by the AI. Humans must ensure there is appropriate attribution of all quoted material, including full citations.
Reviewers:
- Reviewers who choose to use AI-assisted technologies to support the review process must declare their use to the editorial team and are responsible for ensuring that any AI-generated content incorporated into the review is accurate and unbiased.
For Reviewers
The PKJ reviewers must act following the principles of responsibility, integrity, confidentiality, impartiality, and objectivity, and carry out their work as reviewers with absolute transparency.
The Review Process:
All submitted manuscripts are assessed by the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors for suitability for the review process. To save authors and reviewers time, only those manuscripts judged most likely to meet our editorial criteria are sent out for formal review.
Manuscripts that are sent for formal review go to at least two reviewers. Based on their advice, the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors decides to:
- Accept the manuscript, with or without minor revision
- Invite the authors to revise the manuscript to address specific concerns before a final decision is reached
- Or reject the manuscript, typically on grounds of lack of novelty, insufficient conceptual advance or major technical and/or interpretational problems.
Reviewers Selection:
Reviewer selection is critical to the review process, and our choice is based on many factors, including expertise, reputation, specific recommendations, and our previous experience with the reviewer. The Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors invite reviewers and only on acceptance of the invitation will a reviewer have access to the full paper.
Writing the Report:
The most useful reviewer reports, therefore, are those that set out clear, substantiated arguments and refrain from recommending a course of action in the comments directed to the authors.
The primary purpose of reviewer reports is to provide the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors with the information that they need to reach a decision, but they should also instruct the authors on how to strengthen their manuscript.
Reviewers are asked to submit both confidential comments to the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editorsand those that can be directly transmitted to the authors.
Reviewers are asked to maintain a positive and impartial, but critical, attitude in evaluating manuscripts. Criticisms should remain dispassionate; offensive language is not acceptable. As far as possible, a negative report should explain to the authors the weaknesses of their manuscript, so that they can understand the basis for a decision to ask for revision or to reject the manuscript.
The ideal report should include:
- An initial paragraph that summarizes the major findings and the reviewer's overall impressions, as well as highlighting major shortcomings of the manuscript.
- Specific numbered comments, which may be broken down into major and minor criticisms if appropriate
The report should answer the following questions:
- What are the major claims and how significant are they?
- Are the claims novel and convincing?
- Are the claims appropriately discussed in the context of earlier literature?
- Who will be interested and why?
- Does the paper stand out in some way from the others in its field?
- Are there other experiments that would strengthen the paper?
For manuscripts that may merit further consideration, it is also helpful if reviewers can provide advice on the following points where appropriate:
- How the clarity of the writing might be improved (without necessarily going into specific details of spelling and grammar)
- How the manuscript might be shortened
- How to represent earlier literature more fairly
- How to improve the presentation of methodological detail so that the experiments can be reproduced
- This author report should not include a recommendation regarding publication, which is regarded as confidential information since the final decision regarding acceptance, revision or rejection rests with the Editor.
Confidentiality:
Reviewers should treat the review process as being strictly confidential, and should keep the following guidelines in mind:
- manuscripts should not be discussed with anyone not directly involved in the review process
- if colleagues are consulted, they should be identified to the Editors
Timing:
PKJ is committed to rapid editorial decisions and publication.
Efficiency in peer review process is a valuable service both to our authors and the scientific community as a whole. We therefore ask that reviewers respond promptly or inform us if they anticipate a significant delay, which allows us to keep the authors informed and, where necessary, find alternative reviewers.
Conflicts of Interest: Because it is not possible for the Editor-in-Chief or one of the Deputy Editors to know of all possible biases, however, we ask reviewers to declare potential conflicts of interest, and to decline to review in cases where they feel unable to be objective.
For detailed information, please refer to: https://publicationethics.org/
