Review and Editorial Policy
"My son, let not them depart from thine eyes: keep sound wisdom and discretion:
So shall they be life unto thy soul, and grace to thy neck.
Then shalt thou walk in thy way safely, and thy foot shall not stumble."
— Proverbs 3:21–23 (KJV)
Poorvam International Journal of Creative Arts and Cultural Expressions (PIJCACE) is committed to maintaining the highest standards of scholarly publishing through rigorous peer review and transparent editorial processes. This policy outlines our procedures for manuscript evaluation, editorial decision-making, and adherence to publication ethics in accordance with international best practices and COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
1. Peer Review Process
Double-Blind Peer Review
PIJCACE employs a double-blind peer review system to ensure impartiality and fairness in manuscript evaluation. In this process:
- Authors' identities are concealed from reviewers
- Reviewers' identities are concealed from authors
- This mutual anonymity minimizes potential biases related to institutional affiliation, geographic location, career stage, or personal relationships
Number of Reviewers
Each submission is evaluated by a minimum of two independent expert reviewers. In cases where reviewer reports significantly diverge or additional expertise is required, the editor may solicit a third review to inform the editorial decision.
Review Timeline
Reviewer Invitation: Reviewers are invited within 3–5 days of manuscript assignment and given 7 days to accept or decline
Review Period: Reviewers are given 3–4 weeks to complete their evaluation
Reminder System: Automated reminders sent at 2-week mark if review not yet submitted
Total Review Time: Target of 6–8 weeks from submission to initial decision
Confidentiality
All submitted manuscripts are treated as confidential documents. Reviewers must not share, discuss, or use information from manuscripts under review for their own purposes. Manuscripts should not be retained after the review is complete.
2. Editorial Workflow and Decision-Making
Complete Editorial Process
1
Submission and Initial Screening
Timeline: 1–2 weeks
The editorial office conducts initial screening to verify:
- Compliance with submission guidelines and formatting requirements
- Alignment with journal scope and objectives
- Completeness of submission materials
- Absence of ethical concerns or plagiarism (preliminary check)
Outcome: Manuscripts that do not meet basic criteria are desk-rejected with explanation.
2
Editor Assignment
Timeline: 2–3 days
Manuscripts passing initial screening are assigned to the Editor-in-Chief or an Associate Editor with relevant expertise who will manage the peer review process.
3
Reviewer Selection and Invitation
Timeline: 3–7 days
The handling editor identifies and invites qualified reviewers based on expertise, publication record, and absence of conflicts of interest.
4
Peer Review
Timeline: 3–4 weeks per reviewer
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript and provide detailed reports including specific feedback and recommendations.
5
Editorial Decision
Timeline: 3–5 days after receiving reviews
The handling editor evaluates reviewer reports and makes one of the following decisions (see decision types below).
6
Author Revision (if applicable)
Timeline: 4–6 weeks for authors to submit revisions
Authors receive reviewer comments and editorial guidance for revision. Extensions may be granted upon request.
7
Re-review or Final Decision
Timeline: 2–4 weeks
Revised manuscripts may be sent back to reviewers or evaluated by the editor depending on the extent of changes required.
8
Acceptance and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, formatting, and publication preparation.
Editorial Decisions
| Decision |
Description |
Next Steps |
| Accept |
Manuscript meets all publication standards with only minor editorial corrections needed |
Proceeds directly to production |
| Minor Revisions |
Manuscript is sound but requires small improvements in clarity, presentation, or minor scholarly concerns |
Authors revise; editor reviews changes without re-review |
| Major Revisions |
Manuscript has merit but requires substantial revisions to methodology, analysis, argumentation, or structure |
Authors revise; manuscript sent for re-review |
| Reject and Resubmit |
Fundamental issues exist but manuscript has potential if extensively reworked |
Treated as new submission if resubmitted; no guarantee of acceptance |
| Reject |
Manuscript does not meet publication standards, falls outside scope, or has irremediable flaws |
Final decision; authors may submit elsewhere |
3. Review Criteria and Standards
Reviewers are asked to evaluate manuscripts based on the following criteria:
Originality and Significance
Does the work present new insights, perspectives, or findings? Does it make a meaningful contribution to the field?
Scope and Relevance
Does the manuscript align with the journal's focus on creative arts and cultural expressions, particularly from South and East Asian perspectives?
Theoretical Framework
Is the theoretical grounding appropriate and well-articulated? Are key concepts clearly defined and applied?
Methodology
Are the research methods appropriate, clearly described, and rigorously executed? (for empirical research)
Argumentation and Analysis
Is the argument logical, well-supported, and persuasive? Is the analysis sufficiently deep and nuanced?
Literature Engagement
Does the work demonstrate adequate knowledge of relevant scholarship? Are sources appropriately cited and critically engaged?
Clarity and Organization
Is the manuscript well-written, clearly organized, and accessible to an international scholarly audience?
Evidence and Documentation
Are claims adequately supported by evidence? Are figures, tables, and visual materials appropriate and well-presented?
Ethical Standards
Does the work adhere to research ethics, properly acknowledge sources, and respect cultural protocols?
4. Reviewer Selection and Responsibilities
Reviewer Selection Criteria
Reviewers are selected based on:
- Demonstrated expertise in the manuscript's subject area
- Strong publication record in relevant fields
- Geographic and institutional diversity
- Absence of conflicts of interest with authors
- Track record of timely, constructive reviews
Reviewer Responsibilities
Reviewers are expected to:
- Provide objective, constructive, and respectful feedback
- Complete reviews within the agreed timeframe
- Maintain confidentiality of the review process
- Declare any conflicts of interest
- Assess manuscripts based on scholarly merit, not personal preferences
- Alert editors to any ethical concerns or suspected misconduct
- Decline review invitations when lacking sufficient expertise or time
Review Report Components
Comprehensive review reports should include:
- Summary: Brief overview of the manuscript's aims and contributions
- Strengths: What the manuscript does well
- Weaknesses: Areas needing improvement or concerns
- Specific Comments: Detailed, numbered feedback on content, methodology, and presentation
- Recommendation: Clear recommendation with justification
Recognition of Reviewers
PIJCACE values the essential contribution of peer reviewers. Reviewers who complete timely, high-quality reviews will be acknowledged annually on the journal website and may receive certificates of appreciation.
5. Author Rights and Responsibilities
Author Rights
Authors have the right to:
- Fair, timely, and impartial evaluation of their work
- Receive detailed, constructive feedback from reviewers
- Clear communication about editorial decisions and timelines
- Appeal editorial decisions through established procedures
- Withdraw their manuscript before acceptance (with valid justification)
- Retain copyright while granting publication rights to PIJCACE
Author Responsibilities
Authors are responsible for:
- Ensuring all work is original and properly attributed
- Listing all individuals who made substantial contributions as authors
- Obtaining necessary permissions for copyrighted materials
- Disclosing all conflicts of interest and funding sources
- Securing ethical approvals for research involving human subjects
- Responding to reviewer comments and editor requests in a timely manner
- Providing accurate information about previous publications or related submissions
- Correcting any errors discovered after publication
Authorship Criteria
All listed authors must meet the following criteria:
- Substantial contributions to conception, design, execution, or interpretation
- Participation in drafting or critically revising the manuscript
- Approval of the final version to be published
- Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work
Author Changes: Changes to authorship (additions, deletions, reordering) after submission require written approval from all listed authors and must be justified in writing to the editor.
6. Conflicts of Interest
Definition
A conflict of interest exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as manuscript evaluation) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain, personal relationships, or professional competition).
Author Disclosure
Authors must disclose:
- Financial relationships with organizations that might have interest in the work
- Sources of funding for the research
- Personal or professional relationships that could be perceived as influencing the work
- Institutional or organizational affiliations relevant to the research
Reviewer and Editor Conflicts
Reviewers and editors must decline involvement when they:
- Have recent collaborations with the authors (past 3 years)
- Are from the same institution as the authors
- Have personal or professional relationships that could bias evaluation
- Have financial interests related to the manuscript's topic
- Have strong personal views that prevent objective assessment
When in doubt about potential conflicts, reviewers and editors should err on the side of disclosure and recusal. The Editor-in-Chief makes final determinations about conflict severity.
7. Publication Ethics
PIJCACE adheres to the ethical guidelines established by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and is committed to addressing ethical concerns with integrity and transparency.
Ethical Standards
Plagiarism
Presenting others' work or ideas as one's own, without proper attribution, is strictly prohibited and results in immediate rejection.
Data Fabrication/Falsification
Inventing or manipulating data, findings, or images constitutes serious research misconduct and will be reported to institutions.
Duplicate Publication
Submitting the same manuscript to multiple journals or publishing substantially similar work elsewhere without disclosure is prohibited.
Citation Manipulation
Inappropriate self-citation or citation of non-existent sources undermines scholarly integrity and will result in rejection.
Authorship Disputes
All authorship disputes should be resolved before submission. The journal will not mediate authorship conflicts.
Informed Consent
Research involving human participants requires documented informed consent and ethical approval from appropriate institutional review boards.
Handling Ethical Concerns
When ethical issues are identified:
- The editorial office investigates all allegations confidentially
- Authors are given opportunity to respond to concerns
- Independent experts may be consulted for complex cases
- COPE flowcharts guide decision-making processes
- Serious misconduct is reported to authors' institutions
- Outcomes may include rejection, retraction, or publication of concerns
Reporting Ethical Concerns:
Anyone may report suspected ethical violations confidentially to
editor@poorvam.com with subject line "Ethics Concern." All reports are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.
8. Appeals and Complaints
Right to Appeal
Authors may appeal editorial decisions if they believe there were procedural errors, reviewer bias, or misunderstanding of their work.
Appeal Process
1
Submit Written Appeal
Authors must submit a detailed appeal letter to editor@poorvam.com within 30 days of receiving the rejection decision.
2
Required Appeal Components
The appeal must include:
- Specific grounds for appeal with evidence
- Point-by-point response to reviewer concerns
- Explanation of how issues were misunderstood
- Any new information relevant to the decision
3
Editorial Review
The Editor-in-Chief reviews the appeal, original reviews, and manuscript. Additional expert opinion may be sought.
4
Appeal Decision
Possible outcomes:
- Appeal upheld: Manuscript sent for new review
- Appeal partially upheld: Specific issues reconsidered
- Appeal denied: Original decision stands (final)
General Complaints
Complaints about editorial processes, reviewer conduct, or journal operations should be directed to editor@poorvam.com. All complaints are acknowledged within 5 business days and investigated promptly.
Note: Appeals based solely on disagreement with reviewer assessments or editorial judgment are rarely successful. Appeals must identify specific procedural errors or substantive misunderstandings.
9. Post-Publication Corrections
Types of Corrections
Erratum
For minor errors made by authors (typos, calculation mistakes, incorrect citations) that do not affect the main findings or conclusions. Published as a correction notice linked to the original article.
Corrigendum
For minor errors made by the publisher during production (formatting, figure placement, typesetting). Published as a correction notice with apology.
Retraction
For articles containing serious errors, ethical violations, or research misconduct that invalidate the findings or conclusions. Retracted articles:
- Remain online with "RETRACTED" watermark
- Are linked to a retraction notice explaining the reason
- Retain DOI but are marked as retracted in all databases
- Are removed from table of contents but remain accessible for transparency
Expression of Concern
Published when the journal becomes aware of potential issues with a published article that are under investigation but not yet confirmed. May lead to retraction or exoneration.
Requesting Corrections
Authors who discover errors in published work should contact
editor@poorvam.com immediately with:
- Detailed description of the error
- Proposed correction
- Assessment of whether error affects conclusions
- Agreement of all co-authors to the correction
Third parties (readers, researchers) may also report errors or concerns about published articles. All reports are investigated according to COPE guidelines.
Editorial Office Contact
For questions about review and editorial policies:
Email: editor@poorvam.com
Editor-in-Chief: Amritanath Bhattacharya
Website: poorvam.com
