Pyrrhic Press Review Policy

At Pyrrhic Press, we are committed to maintaining the highest ethical standards in the review and publication of scholarly works. Our peer review process is designed to ensure fairness, transparency, and the publication of high-quality content. We aim to foster an open and constructive environment for both authors and reviewers, while adhering to international ethical standards in academic publishing.

1. Manuscript Submission

• Authors must follow the submission guidelines outlined in our Author Guidelines.
• Manuscripts must be submitted via the submission platform specified on the website.
• All submissions are subject to an initial review by the editorial team to ensure that they meet the journal’s scope and quality standards.

2. Peer Review Process

• Double-blind Peer Review: Pyrrhic Press uses a double-blind peer review process, meaning both the reviewers and the authors remain anonymous throughout the review process.
• Reviewer Selection: Reviewers are selected based on their expertise in the relevant field. Reviewers are asked to provide objective, fair, and constructive feedback to improve the quality of the manuscript.
• Reviewer Responsibilities: Reviewers are expected to follow the ethical guidelines provided in our Reviewer Guidelines, including confidentiality, conflict of interest disclosures, and unbiased evaluations.
• Review Timeframe: Reviewers are typically given 3-4 weeks to complete the review. If additional time is needed, reviewers may request an extension.

3. Evaluation Criteria

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the following aspects of the manuscript:

• Originality: The manuscript should provide original insights, data, or concepts that contribute to the field.
• Significance: The work should have a clear impact or relevance to the field of study.
• Clarity and Structure: The manuscript should be well-organized, clear, and free of grammatical errors.
• Methodology: Research methods should be sound and appropriate to the study.
• Ethical Standards: Authors must adhere to ethical guidelines, including the appropriate handling of data, confidentiality, and the avoidance of plagiarism.

4. Review Outcomes

Following the review, one of the following decisions will be made:

• Accept: The manuscript is accepted with no or minor revisions.
• Minor Revisions: The manuscript is accepted pending minor changes, which will be checked by the editor or the reviewer.
• Major Revisions: The manuscript requires substantial revisions. The revised manuscript will undergo another round of review.
• Reject: The manuscript does not meet the journal’s standards and is not suitable for publication.

5. Revision Process

• Authors are expected to submit their revisions within 2-4 weeks of receiving feedback.
• Revised manuscripts should be accompanied by a detailed response to the reviewers’ comments, explaining how the manuscript has been changed.
• Failure to submit the revised manuscript within the specified timeframe may result in the manuscript being withdrawn from consideration.

6. Editorial Decision

• The final decision to publish a manuscript lies with the editorial board. Editors make decisions based on reviewer feedback, originality, relevance to the journal, and overall quality.
• In cases where reviewer feedback is conflicting, the editor may seek additional reviews or provide their own evaluation.

7. Appeals Process

• Authors who believe their manuscript was unfairly rejected may appeal the decision by submitting a formal appeal letter to editor@pyrrhicpress.org.
• The appeal will be reviewed by the editor-in-chief and, if necessary, additional reviewers will be consulted.

8. Ethical Standards

Pyrrhic Press adheres to the ethical standards set forth by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Our review process ensures that:

• Conflicts of Interest: Reviewers and editors must disclose any potential conflicts of interest and recuse themselves if necessary.
• Confidentiality: The review process is confidential. Reviewers and editors are prohibited from sharing the manuscript or its findings prior to publication.

9. Feedback to Reviewers

• To support reviewer development, Pyrrhic Press provides feedback to reviewers on the quality of their reviews. This includes evaluations of thoroughness, clarity, and helpfulness of the review process.

10. Transparency and Accountability

• Pyrrhic Press is committed to providing clear and transparent communication to authors and reviewers throughout the review process.
• All complaints or concerns regarding the review process can be directed to editor@pyrrhicpress.org, where they will be handled with care and confidentiality.

For more detailed information on our submission and review guidelines, please refer to our Submission Guidelines for Authors and Reviewers.