Peer Review Process

PCCM Reports is an independent, open-access, peer-reviewed journal committed to publishing scientifically sound and clinically relevant scholarship in pulmonary and critical care medicine.

The journal employs a structured editorial and peer-review process designed to ensure scientific rigor, fairness, transparency, and constructive feedback, with particular attention to supporting trainees and early-career investigators.

Initial Editorial Assessment

All submitted manuscripts undergo an initial assessment by an editor to determine their relevance to the journal's scope, scientific quality, originality, and adherence to submission requirements.

Manuscripts that do not meet minimum standards or fall outside the journal's scope may be declined without external peer review.

Manuscripts deemed suitable for further consideration are assigned for independent peer review.

Double-Blind Peer Review

PCCM Reports uses a double-blind peer-review process in which authors' identities are concealed from reviewers and reviewers' identities are concealed from authors.

Authors submit separate title-page and anonymized manuscript files to facilitate blinded review. Editors retain access to author information for administrative and editorial purposes.

Reviewers are expected to maintain confidentiality and refrain from attempting to identify the authors.

Reviewer Selection

Manuscripts undergoing peer review are evaluated by at least two independent reviewers with appropriate expertise in the subject matter.

Reviewers are selected by the editorial team based on their clinical, scientific, or methodological qualifications. Reviewers must be independent of the editorial decision-making process for the manuscript and free of conflicts that could compromise their impartiality.

Reviewers are asked to evaluate the scientific validity, methodological rigor, clinical relevance, clarity, and conclusions of the submitted work.

Review Criteria

Reviewers are asked to consider:

  • Originality and contribution to the literature

  • Scientific and methodological rigor

  • Appropriateness of study design and statistical analysis

  • Accuracy and completeness of reported findings

  • Whether conclusions are supported by the evidence

  • Clinical significance and educational value

  • Quality of presentation and relevant references

  • Compliance with applicable ethical standards

For case reports and educational manuscripts, particular emphasis is placed on clinical relevance, educational value, sound reasoning, and the accuracy of the information presented.

Editorial Decisions and Revisions

Following peer review, the handling editor evaluates the reviewers' assessments and determines the appropriate next step.

Decisions may include acceptance, requests for minor or major revisions, additional review, or rejection.

Authors receiving requests for revision are expected to address reviewer comments and provide a response explaining the changes made. Revised manuscripts may undergo additional review when appropriate.

At least two independent peer reviews must be completed before a manuscript is accepted as peer-reviewed scholarly content.

Final publication decisions rest with the Editor-in-Chief or an appropriately designated editor and are based on scientific merit, clinical relevance, and the journal's editorial standards.

Editorial Independence and Conflicts of Interest

Editorial decisions are made independently of authors' institutional affiliations, professional relationships, and financial interests.

Manuscripts submitted by members of the editorial board, institutional colleagues, or individuals with close professional relationships to an editor are subject to the same scientific standards as other submissions.

Editors with relevant conflicts of interest must recuse themselves from the evaluation and decision-making process. An appropriately qualified, independent editor will oversee such manuscripts.

Trainee Participation in Peer Review

As part of its educational mission, PCCM Reports encourages the participation of fellows and other trainees in the peer-review process.

Trainees may participate in manuscript evaluation under the supervision of experienced faculty reviewers, with prior editorial approval. The supervising reviewer remains responsible for the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the submitted review.

Trainee participation is intended to provide meaningful experience in scientific critique and scholarly publishing without compromising the independence or rigor of the review process.

Confidentiality and Research Integrity

Manuscripts under review are confidential documents and must not be distributed, reproduced, or used for personal or professional advantage.

Reviewers must disclose relevant competing interests and decline assignments when impartial evaluation cannot be assured.

Confidential manuscript content must not be uploaded to external generative AI systems without appropriate authorization and confidentiality safeguards.

Concerns involving plagiarism, data integrity, research ethics, or suspected misconduct will be evaluated in accordance with the journal's publication ethics policies.

Special Content and Exceptions

Scholarly manuscripts submitted to special issues or supplements are subject to the same editorial and peer-review standards as regular submissions.

Non-scholarly content, such as editorial announcements, may receive editorial review rather than external peer review. Such material will be clearly identified and will not be represented as externally peer-reviewed research.

Appeals and Editorial Correspondence

Authors may appeal editorial decisions when they believe a substantive scientific or procedural error has occurred. Appeals must explain the grounds for reconsideration.

Questions or concerns regarding the peer-review process may be directed to the editorial office at editor@pccmreports.org.

Additional information regarding publication ethics, conflicts of interest, and research integrity is available in the PCCM Reports Journal Policies.