Peer Review and Publication Process

The PJD Peer Review and Publication Process

All manuscripts submitted to the Philippine Journal of Development (PJD) are subjected to a rigorous double‑blind peer review process, in which the identities of authors and reviewers are concealed throughout the review.

PJD publishes interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary research relevant to development policy and practice. Submissions are welcomed from authors across diverse academic disciplines and professional backgrounds. The Editorial Board comprises scholars and practitioners with expertise covering the Journal’s thematic and methodological scope.

Each manuscript undergoes an initial editorial assessment by the Editor‑in‑Chief and, where appropriate, the Associate Editors. This assessment determines the manuscript’s relevance to the Journal’s aims and scope, adherence to ethical and editorial standards, and suitability for external peer review. Manuscripts that do not meet these criteria may be declined at this stage.

Manuscripts deemed suitable for review are evaluated by at least two independent peer reviewers with appropriate subject‑matter expertise. Reviewers assess submissions based on their quality, originality, methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, and policy relevance. Reviews are conducted in accordance with principles of confidentiality, objectivity, and constructive scholarly critique.

The Editorial Office collates reviewer reports, which inform editorial decisions. Final decisions—acceptance, revision, or rejection—are made by the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Managing Editor solely on the basis of academic and policy merit, without regard to authors’ institutional affiliation, seniority, or background.

The typical peer review period is approximately three months, although timelines may vary depending on reviewer availability and the complexity of the manuscript. Authors are notified of editorial decisions in a timely manner and are provided with anonymized reviewer comments, where applicable, to support revision and improvement.

Details on publication ethics, reviewer responsibilities, and editorial conduct are provided in the Journal’s Publication Ethics and Malpractice Statement.

Criteria for Final Acceptance or Rejection

Following external peer review, the Managing Editor and the Editor‑in‑Chief evaluate the reviewers’ reports, comments, and recommendations to determine the appropriate editorial action. Decisions are guided exclusively by the manuscript’s academic quality, methodological rigor, clarity, and policy relevance.

Based on this evaluation, the editorial decision may take one of the following forms:

• Acceptance with minimal or no revisions, where only minor editorial or technical changes are required;
• Revision and resubmission, where authors are requested to address substantive peer reviewer comments within a specified period;
• Rejection, where the manuscript does not meet the Journal’s standards or falls outside its scope; or
• Referral for a third review, where additional expert evaluation is deemed necessary to reach a fair and informed decision.

Authors invited to revise their manuscripts are required to submit a revised version together with a detailed, point‑by‑point response to the reviewers’ comments. Revised submissions are assessed by the Editor‑in‑Chief and, where appropriate, the Associate Editors. Depending on the extent of revisions and the nature of the original concerns, revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or sent to additional reviewers for further evaluation.

Manuscripts that satisfactorily address all substantive concerns and meet the Journal’s editorial standards are granted final acceptance. Accepted papers proceed to the production stage, which includes copyediting, proofing, and preparation for publication in accordance with the Journal’s style and quality requirements.

Peer Review and Publication Process Flow

Step 1. Submission and Initial Screening
The PJD editorial staff reviews submissions for:

• Compliance with author guidelines
• Alignment with the journal’s scope
• Originality and scholarly merit

Manuscripts failing to meet minimum requirements may be rejected.

Step 2. Assignment to Associate Editor
The Editor-in-Chief (EIC) or an Associate Editor conducts an initial screening of submitted manuscripts. Manuscripts may be rejected at this stage if they do not meet the journal’s basic requirements, as determined by the EIC or assigned editor.

Step 3. Double-Blind Peer Review

At least two independent experts review each manuscript under a double-blind system, where the identities of both authors and reviewers are concealed. Reviewers evaluate each manuscript guided by the following standards:

• The title should clearly and precisely represent the study’s scope and content.
• The objectives must be well-articulated and aligned with the subject matter.
• The research design and analytical methods must be appropriate, transparent, and sufficiently detailed.
• The manuscript should demonstrate logical organization and clear exposition of results.
• Claims must be well-substantiated by the evidence and analyses provided.
• The tables and figures must be necessary, accurate, complete, and properly labeled.
• Citations should be relevant, sufficient, and reflect engagement with appropriate scholarly literature.

The reviewers may provide further recommendations intended to strengthen the clarity, methodological soundness, and substantive contribution of the manuscript. Finally, they may advise whether the manuscript should be accepted for publication with minimal changes, accepted contingent on the authors’ revisions, or rejected.

Step 4. Editorial Decision
The Managing Editor and Editor-in-Chief evaluate the reviewers’ comments and recommendations to determine the appropriate editorial action. This decision may include accepting the manuscript with minimal changes, requesting the authors to revise and resubmit,  rejecting the submission, or undertaking a third review.

Step 5. Revision and Re-evaluation
Authors revise manuscripts and submit a response to reviewers. Revised papers may undergo further review.

Step 6. Final Acceptance and Production
Accepted manuscripts proceed to copyediting, proofing, and publication.

Peer Review Flowchart

Appeals and Complaints Policy

Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe that their manuscript was not treated fairly during the peer‑review process. Appeals are considered only on procedural grounds, such as evidence that the Journal’s review policies were not properly applied. Disagreement with reviewers’ or editors’ academic judgment does not, by itself, constitute grounds for appeal.

Appeals should be submitted in writing to the Editor‑in‑Chief or the Associate Editor who handled the manuscript and must include a clear and specific explanation of the procedural concern. The Editor‑in‑Chief or Associate Editor will review the appeal and either uphold the original decision or invite further revision.

If the author remains dissatisfied and presents additional evidence of procedural irregularity, a second and final appeal may be submitted to the Editor‑in‑Chief, who may seek independent advice from a member of the Advisory Board. The outcome of this stage is final.

Privacy Statement

The PJD is committed to protecting the privacy of authors and reviewers. Any personal information collected during the submission and review process is used solely for editorial and publishing purposes. Author and reviewer identities are kept confidential throughout the review process, and no personal data is shared with third parties.

Frequency of Publication

The PJD is published biannually, with issues released in June and December of each year. Manuscripts may be submitted throughout the year and are not restricted to a fixed submission schedule.

All articles that have been accepted and have completed the editorial and production process are published online on an advance access basis once they have been copyedited, laid out, proofread, and approved by the authors, ahead of their inclusion in a scheduled issue.