Peer review plays a key role in academic career development. Peer Review is critical because it improves the quality of the published papers, determines the importance of findings, and ensures that previous work is acknowledged. Peer review updates reviewers with latest developments, making them aware of recent research before their peers, helps them with their own research, assists in their career development, and builds an association with journals and editors. A thorough and comprehensive report is required, providing well-founded comments for authors, constructive criticism, and a clear recommendation to the editor. Abrasive comments to the authors are prohibited. 

Articles submitted to the PAJN are seen by one or more members of the Editorial Board. At this stage, some are rejected without peer review owing to lack of novelty, serious scientific flaws, or work lying outside the scope of the journal. Suitable articles are sent to at least 2 experts for review; the assigned member of the editorial board will act as a third reviewer. Upon receiving an invitation to the reviewer to review a manuscript, a response should be received by the editorial office, whether accepting or declining the invitation, within the time limit specified by the Editor In-Chief. Editorial board members or reviewers who fail to respond repeatedly to the initial invitation letter, either by accepting or declining the invitation, will be excluded from the reviewing process for future submissions. Results of the reviewing process should be received before the deadline specified by the Editor-in-Chief. If a reviewer needs more time, for any exceptional conditions, he/she should request that in written letter to the editorial office, for a maximum of 48 hours extension after the deadline. Comments to the editor are required, including comments regarding the novelty and significance of the article, and recommendations about the suitability of the manuscript for publication in the journal. Confidential comments to the editor will not be disclosed to the authors. 

A peer-reviewed system is used to select manuscripts for publication. The journal is published in the English language. Original research articles are particularly supported and encouraged. Submitted articles will be distributed to at least 2 reviewers in a double-blind way, and they will be given 14 days for the reviewing process. Each reviewer should develop an account with a username and password. Feedback from the reviewers will be sent to the Editor In-Chief within 14 days. Reviewers will be requested to write comments and questions to the authors, and another confidential letter to the Editor In-Chief recommending either: Accept, Minor Revision, Major Revision, or Rejection. The Final Decision will be taken by the Editor-in-Chief. If revision is needed, the authors should make changes in the article by the “Track Changes” feature, and should write a response letter to reviewers, answering every question and addressing each comment. Revision of an article gives no guarantee of acceptance, and in some cases, revised articles are rejected if the improvements are not sufficient or new issues arise. For accepted articles, page proofs will be sent to the authors for final approval.