Peer Review Process at The Pinnacle International Journals

At The Pinnacle International Journals, we are committed to ensuring the highest standards of academic rigor and integrity. All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo a thorough and transparent peer review process, which is central to maintaining the quality and credibility of our publications. We follow a double-blind peer review model to ensure impartiality and fairness in the evaluation process.

We publish two esteemed journals under our umbrella:

  • Critique Open Research & Review
  • The Pinnacle Research Journal of Scientific and Management Sciences

Step 1: Manuscript Submission

Authors must submit their manuscripts via our online submission portal. Upon submission, the following steps occur:

  1. Initial Screening
    The editorial team conducts an initial screening to check for conformity with the journal’s scope, plagiarism, and formatting requirements. Manuscripts that do not meet basic submission guidelines or are deemed unsuitable for the journal’s focus are returned to the authors without undergoing peer review.

  2. Assignment to an Editor
    Once the manuscript passes the initial screening, it is assigned to an appropriate editor based on the journal's scope and subject matter. The editor evaluates the manuscript for its relevance, quality, and adherence to the journal’s standards.

Step 2: Peer Review Assignment

  1. Selection of Reviewers
    The editor selects two to three independent experts in the relevant field (from an extensive pool of qualified reviewers) to review the manuscript. Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the manuscript’s subject matter and their ability to provide a fair and constructive evaluation. We aim to ensure diversity in the selection of reviewers to avoid conflicts of interest.

  2. Double-Blind Review Process
    In our double-blind peer review process:

    • Authors' identities are concealed from the reviewers.
    • Reviewers' identities are also concealed from the authors. This ensures an impartial and unbiased evaluation of the manuscript, with feedback focusing purely on the quality and merit of the research.

Step 3: Reviewer's Evaluation

The reviewers are asked to assess the manuscript based on several criteria, including but not limited to:

  • Originality and Novelty: Is the research original and does it make a significant contribution to the field?
  • Clarity and Structure: Is the manuscript well-organized, with clear sections and logically presented ideas?
  • Methodology: Is the research design and methodology sound and appropriate for the study objectives?
  • Results and Analysis: Are the results presented clearly, and are the analysis and interpretation of data valid?
  • References and Citations: Are the references relevant, current, and properly cited? Do they reflect the existing body of literature in the field?
  • Impact and Relevance: Does the research have potential implications for practice, policy, or future research?

Reviewers provide detailed feedback, including comments for improvement, and recommend one of the following actions:

  • Accept: The manuscript is suitable for publication with little or no revision required.
  • Minor Revision: The manuscript requires minor changes before it can be accepted.
  • Major Revision: The manuscript requires significant revisions and may be reconsidered after resubmission.
  • Reject: The manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in the journal.

Step 4: Author Revision

Based on the feedback provided by the reviewers, the editor sends the reviewer comments and recommendations to the authors. Authors are required to:

  1. Revise the manuscript according to the reviewers’ suggestions.
  2. Submit a revised manuscript along with a point-by-point response to the reviewers, explaining how each comment has been addressed or justifying why certain suggestions were not incorporated.

If the reviewers recommended major revisions, the manuscript will go through a second round of review to ensure that all necessary changes were made.

Step 5: Final Decision

After receiving the revised manuscript, the editor evaluates whether the revisions satisfy the reviewers' comments. Based on the evaluation, the editor makes a final decision on whether to accept or reject the manuscript.

  1. Acceptance: If the manuscript meets the journal’s standards after revisions, it will be accepted for publication. The manuscript is then prepared for final formatting and inclusion in the next issue.
  2. Rejection: If the manuscript does not meet the standards after revisions, or if it is deemed unsuitable for publication, the manuscript is rejected. Authors will be provided with detailed reasons for the rejection.

Step 6: Post-Acceptance

Once the manuscript is accepted, it undergoes a final quality check, including formatting, grammar review, and plagiarism checking, to ensure it adheres to the journal's publication standards.

  1. Proofreading and Formatting: The accepted manuscript is formatted according to the journal’s style guidelines and proofread for any grammatical or typographical errors.
  2. Publication: The manuscript is then published in the next available issue of the journal. Authors will be notified of the publication date, and they will be provided with a copy of the final published article.