At Puitika, peer review is a cornerstone of our commitment to academic rigor, integrity, and scholarly excellence. The journal employs a double-blind peer-review process, in which both authors and reviewers remain anonymous throughout the evaluation. This ensures objectivity and minimizes bias based on authorship, institutional affiliation, or geographical origin.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:
• Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
• Adherence to submission guidelines
• Overall academic quality and originality
• Compliance with ethical publishing standards
Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors without further review.
2. Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers who possess subject-matter expertise relevant to the submission. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, publication record, and familiarity with the topic.
3. Double-Blind Review
During the review process:
• Authors’ identities are not disclosed to the reviewers
• Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, theoretical and methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the field, and contribution to existing scholarship. Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript, regardless of their recommendation.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
• Accept the manuscript
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
• Reject the manuscript
Authors will receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial decision. For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are expected to respond to each comment and submit a revised version within the specified timeframe.
5. Final Evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team to ensure that all issues have been adequately addressed. A final decision will then be communicated to the author.
6. Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, layout formatting, and final proofreading before being published online in the next available issue.
1. Initial Editorial Screening
Upon submission, each manuscript undergoes an initial screening by the Editor-in-Chief or a designated section editor. At this stage, the manuscript is evaluated for:
• Relevance to the journal’s focus and scope
• Adherence to submission guidelines
• Overall academic quality and originality
• Compliance with ethical publishing standards
Manuscripts that do not meet these basic requirements may be returned to the authors without further review.
2. Assignment to Reviewers
Manuscripts that pass the initial screening are assigned to at least two independent expert reviewers who possess subject-matter expertise relevant to the submission. Reviewers are selected based on academic qualifications, publication record, and familiarity with the topic.
3. Double-Blind Review
During the review process:
• Authors’ identities are not disclosed to the reviewers
• Reviewers’ identities are not disclosed to the authors
Reviewers evaluate the manuscript based on originality, theoretical and methodological rigor, clarity of presentation, relevance to the field, and contribution to existing scholarship. Reviewers are also encouraged to provide constructive feedback aimed at improving the manuscript, regardless of their recommendation.
4. Editorial Decision
Based on reviewers’ reports, the editor will make one of the following decisions:
• Accept the manuscript
• Accept with minor revisions
• Revise and resubmit (major revisions required)
• Reject the manuscript
Authors will receive anonymized reviewer comments along with the editorial decision. For manuscripts requiring revisions, authors are expected to respond to each comment and submit a revised version within the specified timeframe.
5. Final Evaluation
Revised manuscripts may be returned to the original reviewers or evaluated by the editorial team to ensure that all issues have been adequately addressed. A final decision will then be communicated to the author.
6. Publication
Once accepted, the manuscript undergoes copyediting, layout formatting, and final proofreading before being published online in the next available issue.